The SAA Archaeological Record - March 2012

SPECIAL FORUM: NEW DIRECTIONS IN BIOARCHAEOLOGY

the

MARCH 2012 • VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2

S O C I E T Y F O R A M E R I C A N A R C H A E O L O G Y
Beale Street: One of America’s most famous musical streets. Located in the heart of downtown Memphis with three blocks of more than 30 night-
clubs, restaurants, and retail shops. Music includes traditional blues, R&B, jazz and rock ‘n’ roll. Catch a concert at Handy Park or attend one of
the annual festivals or parades. Photo credit: Memphis Convention & Visitors Bureau.
SEE YOU IN MEMPHIS!

Registration Opens at 2 PM on Wednesday, April 18 in the Convention Center!
Final Program, Abstracts, and much more can be viewed on SAAweb
(www.saa.org) in the Annual Meeting Section
the
SAAarchaeological record
The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology
Volume 12, No. 2
March 2012
Editor’s Corner 2 Jane Eva Baxter

Letters to the Editor 3
In Brief 5 Tobi A. Brimsek
SAA llega a Latinoamérica: 6 Barbara Arroyo, Tomas Mendizabal,
La Conferencia Intercontinental and Dan Sandweiss
Bringing SAA to Latin America:
The Intercontinental Conference
Volunteer Profile 9 Dan Sandweiss
Survey of Professional Opinions 10 Amber D. Wheat
Regarding the Peopling of the Americas
Experiment Meets Recreation: 15 John C. Whittaker
Throwing Spears with the Public
Proyecto Qochamama? Experiences, Perceptions, 18 Maria C. Bruno, Nicole C. Couture,
and Representations of Three Female and Deborah E. Blom
Co-Directors at Tiwanaku, Bolivia
Careers in Archaeology: Taking the Road Less Traveled: 22 Richard M. (Rick) Pettigrew
Public Outreach through Media and the Internet
Who Gets Published in American Antiquity? 25 Alison E. Rautman
“The Principles of Archaeological Ethics as a Living 27 Joe Watkins
Document: Is Revision Necessary?”
A Request from the SAA Committee on Ethics
special forum: new directions in bioarchaeology Guest Editors: Debra L. Martin and Ryan P Harrod
New Directions in Bioarchaeology 31 Debra L. Martin and Ryan P Harrod
Ethnobioarchaeology 32 Ryan P. Harrod
Kids through Adult Eyes: 35 Marc F. Oxenham
The Bioarchaeology of Children
A Bioarchaeology of Sex and Gender: 38 Pamela K. Stone
What Is the Difference and Why Is It Important?
The Bioarchaeology Of Disease 41 Molly K. Zuckerman
News and Notes 44

Calendar 44
the
SAAarchaeological record
The Magazine of the Society for
American Archaeology
Volume 12, No. 2
March 2012
EDITOR’S CORNER
Jane Eva Baxter
The SAA Archaeological Record
(ISSN 1532-7299) is published five
times a year and is edited by Jane
Eva Baxter. Submissions should be
sent to Jane Eva Baxter, jbaxter@
depaul.edu, DePaul University,
Department of Anthropology, 2343
North Racine, Chicago, IL 60614
Deadlines for submissions are:
December 1 (January), February 1
(March), April 1 (May), August 1
(September), and October 1
T
his issue of The SAA Archaeological Record is the last you’ll be receiving before the
(November). Advertising and place-
ment ads should be sent to SAA Annual Meeting in Memphis. I’ll be at the meeting working on behalf of the
headquarters, 1111 14th St. NW, magazine, and seeking materials for upcoming issues. If you’ve organized a ses-
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005. sion for the meetings (paper or poster presentations) and think the topic might be
The SAA Archaeological Record is appropriate for a forum, or if you are an individual presenter and think your paper
provided free to members and insti- might be well suited for publication in The SAA Archaeological Record, please feel free
tutional subscribers to American to contact me in advance of the meetings, and I’ll try to stop by your presentation or
Antiquity and Latin American Antiq- session. My email is [email protected] and I’d be more than happy to hear from you!
uity worldwide. The SAA Archaeo-
logical Record can be found on the
Web in PDF format at www.saa.org.
The contents of this issue are diverse, but include several items from the SAA and its
committees. The report of the Conferencia Intercontinental, an article by the editor of
SAA publishes The SAA Archaeolog-
ical Record as a service to its mem-
American Antiquity, a request for member input on ethics reform from the Committee
bers and constituencies. SAA, its on Ethics, another contribution to the Careers in Archaeology series by the Public Edu-
editors and staff are not responsible cation Committee, and an article on women directing field projects sponsored by
for the content, opinions and infor- COSWA are all examples of how SAA Committees and volunteers are addressing
mation contained in The SAA issues of concern to our diverse membership. I’ve been working with our committees
Archaeological Record. SAA, its edi- and volunteers to increase organizational presence in the magazine, both through our
tors and staff disclaim all war-
regular Volunteer Profile column, and through articles and issues that illustrate the
ranties with regard to such content,
opinions and information pub- work of our committees to the membership. If you know someone who volunteers for
lished in The SAA Archaeological the SAA and would like to see them featured in the volunteer profile column, or if there
Record by any individual or organi- is an issue relating to the work of the SAA or one of its committees that you’d like to
zation; this disclaimer includes all learn more about, please contact me with your suggestions.
implied warranties of mer-
chantability and fitness. In no event
Finally, I’d like to thank Debra Martin and Ryan Harrod for the exemplary job they’ve
shall SAA, its editors and staff be
liable for any special, indirect, or done as guest editors in this two-part special forum on New Directions in Bioarchae-
consequential damages or any ology. Bioarchaeology has a growing profile in our discipline, and the techniques and
damages whatsoever resulting from perspectives of this area of specialization are pushing archaeological inquiry in excit-
loss of use, data, or profits, arising ing new directions. This forum is designed to showcase some of the broad thematic
out of or in connection with the use areas where bioarchaeologists are focusing their interests and energies, and offer those
or performance of any content, of us outside the specialization an excellent introduction to this area of research.
opinions or information included
in The SAA Archaeological Record.
Thanks to both Debra and Ryan for suggesting this topic, and for working so diligent-
ly to bring an excellent collection of papers together. I am sure you’ll enjoy the contri-
butions this month, and in the upcoming May issue.
Copyright ©2012 by the Society for
American Archaeology. All Rights
Reserved.
2 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
SAA Photo Release Policy senilely paternalistic. If it is to avoid pos- seriously your questions about the
sible offense and legal action, it is irra- SAA’s long-time policy that requires
Note from the SAA Board: For many years tionally cowardly. If we treat the subjects model releases for any living individuals
the Society, like the great majority of jour- in our photographs with respect, and that can be identified in a photo. We
nal and book publishers, has had a policy commit no libel, then openly taken pho- have discussed your concerns with SAA
that authors must submit a model release tographs in public settings are ethically staff, legal advisors, and the Publications
form if they are submitting photographs and legally clean. This bizarre rule Committee, and have researched the
that contain living, identifiable individuals. works to stifle open interaction with the author guidelines and policies of other
Recently John Whittaker contacted the innumerable individuals in public organizations.
Board expressing his concerns about this places, who often are pleased to be inad-
The SAA policy derives from state and
policy. As a result the Board, in conjunction vertently shown in a news photo. It
international laws according individuals
with the Publications Committee, reviewed inhibits our free speech, normal human
a “right of privacy.” For the most part,
the situation. After this review the Com- interaction, and our right to open schol-
these laws do not apply to the photogra-
mittee and Board reaffirmed the policy. The arship and reporting. All SAA members
pher, but do apply to organizations pub-
response to Dr. Whittaker provides details should be concerned about this policy,
lishing the photographs—in this case,
on the basis for this reaffirmation. which strikes at the heart of what we do.
the SAA. Although the likelihood of the
If it came from our lawyers, why did no
Society being sued for the misuse of an
Dear SAA Leadership, one have the guts to tell them where to
image is small, the probability is not
stick it? If our professional organization
zero. While the policy does impose
I was writing an article on public archae- won’t stand up for free speech and open
some inconvenient restrictions to
ology for the Record recently when I dis- scholarship, where do we turn?
authors, it does not dramatically restrict
covered an SAA policy that actively I haven’t even touched some of the other the ability of authors to properly illus-
works against doing just that, and prohibitions that follow from such a pol- trate their articles, and does not consti-
abridges our rights to free expression. icy. For instance, will the SAA, an organ- tute a violation of the author’s right to
Jane Baxter informed me that SAA poli- ization which claims at least some com- freedom of expression. In the Board’s
cy (not hers) required me to have per- mitment to social justice, now refuse to view, the restrictions that this policy
mission from every person recognizable print documentation of abuses, for fear imposes are overweighed by the poten-
in a photograph in order to publish it. of offending criminals? tial (though small) for a substantial cost
What an absurdity! As scholars and as to the Society if a suit were to be filed.
free citizens, we take lots of photos of I ask my society leadership and fellow
people doing all sorts of things. We can- members to resist such unwarranted We note that most other publishers
not ask everyone to grant permission for and nonsensical restrictions. If we must require model releases, particularly
any possible use, and we should not. have a formal policy on publishing pho- where minors are depicted. The Ameri-
People engaged in legal activities in pub- tos, let it be a liberal and open one, that can Anthropological Association is a
lic spaces have no expectation of respects not only those we study, photo- notable exception, as John Doershuk
absolute privacy, and cannot. I feel it is graph, or report on, but also our rights, pointed out to us in his December 15,
courteous to ask someone’s permission and relies on our dignity and responsi- 2011 communication in support of your
to stick a camera in their face, but in bility as humans, rather than an position. Our legal sources are confi-
some circumstances, this is not possi- unthinking taboo. dent, however, that their approach
ble, and there are often many peripheral would not protect the AAA in the event
Sincerely,
folk who happen to be in a photo who of a suit, and the AAA would be finan-
John C. Whittaker
cannot always be asked, and often would cially responsible for damages.
Professor, Anthropology Department
be surprised and annoyed to be pestered Grinnell College While we agree that it should be legal
for their name and signature on a legal Grinnell, IA 50112 and ethical to publish photos of identifi-
form. As a responsible scholar, I am able adults in demonstrable public
committed to protecting the people I places where there cannot be an expec-
study, and not intruding unreasonably, Reply to Dr. Whittaker tation of privacy, and such photos may
and editors can and should exercise fur- indeed enhance a scholarly publication,
ther oversight, but a blanket rule is non- Thank you for bringing your concerns in practice a number of complications
sense and quite contrary to our ideals of about photo illustrations in The SAA make editorial evaluation on a case-by-
free speech and expression. If it is Archaeological Record to the attention of case basis impracticable. Among these
intended to “protect” the subjects, it is the SAA Board of Directors. We take complications are difficulties in con-
March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
firming whether any of the subjects are A list of events is available at: What the students get out of early living
under the age of 18; whether there is any http://www.hollowtop.com/Primitive_ skills workshops has been life changing.
doubt that the setting is a public place; Skills_Gatherings.htm A hands-on teaching method opens up
the fact that each of the 50 states has a student perspective on ancient lives.
Some of the best flintknappers in North
different law and international laws vary; Archaeologists should encourage their
America teach knapping at events held
and the considerable expense to the soci- students to attend workshop events. The
around the country. Many of the instruc-
ety of detailed legal research and advice archaeologists may benefit from attend-
tors contribute to the Society of Primi-
in producing a more liberal but still ing or teaching at events as well. I know I
tive Technology’s Bulletin of Primitive
legally valid policy. have. Field schools could benefit through
Technology (BPT). Many spend many
developing contacts with individuals who
It is the consensus of the Board that con- hours developing and replicating
could teach a class in the field.
tinuation of the existing policy best protects ancient skills. Sitting down with knap-
the interests of the Society’s members. pers and making a biface and/or stone Dr. Leland Gilsen
tools is the best way to understand lithic Retired State Archaeologist (Oregon)
W. Fred Limp
debris. Pecking a stone bowl gives one a www.oregon-archaeology.com
RPA, SAA President
different perspective on the artifact. Rec- www.echoes-in-time.com
ognizing useful plants broadens survey
Letter to the Editor: skills. Making an atlatl and darts, and
then using the weapon system makes a Editor’s note: Based on this letter, I’ve asked
I received my January, 2012, The SAA dart point found in an archaeological Dr. Gilsen to prepare an article on these
Archaeological Record today. As the direc- context come alive. Skinning an animal workshops for The SAA Archaeological
tor of a field school for nearly 30 years at with a stone fragment changes how one Record. Look for more in an upcoming issue!
the same site, I read the articles by Mor- looks at that humble flake.
rison, Connell, Boytner, Lerch, and
Doelle and Huntley with great interest.
All had great ideas! Only one comment
is noted for the Connell article at the end
of the first paragraph. Rick Perry is gov-
ernor of Texas. I hope that the good citi- History of Archaeology Interest Group, by Bernard K. Means
zens of Florida and their governor, Jeb
The History of Archaeology Interest Group (HAIG) had a busy year in 2011. A
Bush, do not take umbrage at this slip!
newsletter was introduced in January 2011 and four issues were published in elec-
tronic format during the year. These were posted in the Interest Group section of
Robert L. Hoover, Ph.D.
the SAA member’s page. Response was very positive from HAIG members to the
newsletters. The first issue of volume 2 and the four issues from volume 1 are
Letter to the Editor available at: http://www.saa.org/HistoryofArchaeologyInterestGroup/tabid/1434/
Default.aspx
Bethany Morrison’s article More Than
Digging Square Holes (Vol. 12, No. 1 Janu-
The 2012 SAA annual meeting in Memphis will see the HAIG-sponsored Bienni-
ary 2012) illustrates how fieldwork
al Gordon R. Willey Session on the History of Archaeology. The session is chaired
changes students’ perspectives by recon-
by Anna Lunn and David H. Dye and is entitled “New Deal Archaeology in The
necting them with nature. In reading the
Tennessee Valley.” The University of Alabama Press has been contacted and is
special forum on field schools, I could
interested in publishing the papers in the session, possibly as part of a new, dedi-
not help but think about other training
cated series on the history of archaeology.
possibilities, namely early living skills
workshop events. For example, Back-
Speaking of the Biennial Gordon R. Willey Session and the University of Alabama
tracks, which operates Rabbitstick
Press, pre-production has begun on a book based in part on the 2010 HAIG-spon-
(Rexburg Idaho) and Winter Count
sored session on New Deal archaeology. It is expected that Shovel Ready: Archae-
(Mariposa Arizona), has been offering
ology and Roosevelt’s New Deal for America will be available by Fall 2012.
workshops for 25 years. I am a retired
State Archaeologist (Oregon) and I vol-
Finally, HAIG will be holding its interest group meeting Friday, April 20, at 8 am,
unteer with Echoes-In-Time (URL below)
in Memphis. I invite all SAA attendees to join us in our meeting.
and teach at four events (Echoes, Rabbit-
stick, Winter Count, and Buckeye).

IN BRIEF
IN BRIEF
Tobi A. Brimsek
Tobi A. Brimsek is executive director for the Society for American Archaeology.
Communications and SAA And About Those Spam Filters

On a regular basis, the topic of this column has been about Staff has continued to observe that emails sent from SAA’s
receiving and sending electronic communications to and from departmental mailboxes and those generated from our database
SAA. In order to make sure that you do receive communications are not always reaching some destinations due to the more
from the Society, we wanted to share the list below that outlines sophisticated spam filters in use. The Society would appreciate
from where you may receive the basic electronic correspon- it if you would set your filters to accept emails from a few dif-
dence from the Society. Of course, there are also periodic staff ferent addresses within SAA or check your junk mail boxes if
changes and president rotations, but these emails will keep you you do not seem to be hearing from SAA.
in the loop now.
Email Address Content New Faces in Memphis

[email protected] Administrative announcements (including In the spring/summer of 2011, we had a few staff transitions.
renewal information) from the executive
There are three new staff who will be in Memphis experiencing
director
[email protected] Emails from the SAA President (also the annual meeting for the first time: Cheng Zhang, manager,
including renewal information) Information Services who will be running registration; Shelley
[email protected] Registration confirmations, acceptance let- Adams, coordinator, Financial and Administrative Services who
ters will be running the Staff Office and spending time in the SAA
[email protected] Election ballots and follow-ups booth; and Lorenzo Cabrera, coordinator, Membership and Mar-
keting, who will be in the SAA booth and taking a turn in the
Contacting SAA
Staff Office as well. If you have been corresponding with these
You may address emails to a number of departmental addresses: staff, stop by and say hello onsite in Memphis.
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] Coming Soon for Members Only!
[email protected] Currently in production are simultaneous digital versions of
both American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity for mem-
Or to specific staff members: ber subscribers only. Another reason to keep your email current
is that SAA will notify you, as a member subscriber, when the
[email protected]—executive director (please note that this email
digital version of the journal or journals to which you subscribe
goes directly to Tobi Brimsek; tobi_a_brimsek is routed through
the membership coordinator) are available online! Once production is complete, the digital
[email protected]—manager, Government Affairs versions will be available likely before the print copies!
[email protected]—manager, Education and Outreach
[email protected]—manager, Publications
[email protected]—manager, Membership and Marketing
cheng [email protected]—manager, Information Services
[email protected] – coordinator, Financial and Administrative
Services
[email protected]—coordinator, Membership and Marketing

LA CONFERENCIA INTERCONTINENTAL
SAA LLEGA BRINGING SAA TO

A LATINOAMÉRICA: LATIN AMERICA
LA CONFERENCIA THE INTERCONTINENTAL
INTERCONTINENTAL CONFERENCE
Barbara Arroyo, Tomas Mendizabal, Barbara Arroyo, Tomas Mendizabal,

and Dan Sandweiss and Dan Sandweiss
A solicitud de los autores, estos se citan en órden alfabético By their request, the three authors of this article are listed alphabetically by
ya que todos contribuyeron de igual forma. last name rather than by any convention listing “senior” and “junior”
authors in the order of the weight of their respective contributions.
L A
a Junta Directiva de la SAA decidió en enero del 2010 s part of a concerted effort to engage Latin American
patrocinar la primera Conferencia Intercontinental. Esta archaeologists more fully in the life of the Society, and to
se hizo como parte de un esfuerzo concertado para invo- bring the SAA to this part of the world, the SAA Board
lucrar a arqueólogos latinoamericanos en el quehacer de la decided in January 2010 to sponsor the first ever Conferencia
sociedad además de llevar la SAA a Latinoamérica. Las reglas Intercontinental. The ground rules were simple: hold the Con-
fueron claras: hacer la conferencia en un país de Latinoamérica ferencia in a Latin American country (Panama for the first one),
(Panamá para la primera), usar el castellano como el idioma ofi- conduct all proceedings in Spanish, keep costs to a minimum to
cial, mantener los costos al mínimo para motivar la participa- encourage participation, deliver all papers in plenary session,
ción, presentar todas las ponencias en una sesión plenaria, include posters, and use a peer-review process to select the most
incluir carteles y utilizar un proceso de “revisión por pares” para appropriate papers and posters for presentation.
seleccionar las ponencias y carteles más adecuados según el
tema. SAA President Meg Conkey asked Dan Sandweiss and Bárbara
Arroyo to plan and run the Conferencia in close collaboration
La presidente de la SAA Meg Conkey en aquel momento le with SAA Executive Director Tobi Brimsek and her staff. Bár-
pidió a Dan Sandweiss y Bárbara Arroyo planear y organizar la bara soon brought in Tomás Mendizabal to round out the team
Conferencia en cercana colaboración con la Directora Ejecutiva as local chair. The Conferencia was announced publically at the
Tobi Brimsek y su equipo. Bárbara trajo a Tomás Mendizábal 2010 Annual Meeting in St. Louis.
para completar el equipo como organizador local. La Conferen-
cia fue anunciada públicamente en la reunión anual de la socie- Initially intended for July 2011, the Conferencia team decided to
dad en St. Louis en 2010. postpone the event until January 2012 to allow sufficient time
for planning and to avoid the hurricane season in Panama. By
Inicialmente se intentó organizar para Julio del 2011, pero el early 2011, Tobi and Tomás were deeply engaged in finding an
equipo de la Conferencia decidió posponer el evento hasta enero appropriate venue and hotel in Panama. At the same time, Dan
de 2012 para tener suficiente tiempo para planear y escapar de and Bárbara were putting together a Conferencia Committee to
la temporada de huracanes en Panamá. Desde el inicio de 2011, review paper and poster proposals. The full committee included
Tobi y Tomás estaban completamente comprometidos en 17 Latin American archaeologists, two North American archae-
encontrar el lugar adecuado para realizar la conferencia así ologists, and a European archaeologist representing the profes-
como el hotel donde alojar a los participantes. Al mismo tiem- sional communities of 19 Latin American countries and the
po, Dan y Bárbara juntaban el comité de la conferencia para United States.
revisar las propuestas de ponencias y carteles. El comité com-
pleto incluyó 17 arqueólogos latinoamericanos, dos norteameri- Three themes were selected for the Conferencia: (1) Interre-
canos y un europeo, representando a las comunidades profesio- gional Interaction in the Americas between Two or More
nales de 19 países latinoamericanos y Estados Unidos. National Areas; (2) Sustainable Archaeological Tourism; and (3)

Latest Discoveries. The schedule allowed for 36 talks and 12

posters. The call for abstracts went out in early 2011 with a due
date of mid-June of that year. We received about three times as
many submissions as spaces available and the full committee
evaluated the proposals to aid in final selection based on adher-
ence to the themes, interest beyond local areas, and distribution
among the various Latin American nations. It was very difficult
to choose among so many good abstracts. Decisions were sent
out in July, 2011.
The final piece of the program was the invitation to a leading

Latin American archaeologist to present the keynote speech at
the opening session. Chilean archaeologist Lautaro Núñez
accepted our request. He opened the Conferencia on the
evening of Friday January 13 in the ATLAPA Convention Center
with a moving talk “On The Social Projection of Archaeological
Investigations in Latin America.” Preceding the talk, SAA Pres-
ident Fred Limp presented Presidential Recognition Awards—
in Spanish—to the three authors of this note for their work in
organizing the Conferencia. Prof. Núñez’s talk was followed by
Figura 1: Fred Limp presenta el Reconocimiento Presidencial de la SAA por a lavish reception.
los arreglos locales al Coordinador Tomás Mendizabal. (Fred Limp Presents
the SAA Presidential Recognition Award to Local Arrangements Chair On Saturday January 14 and Sunday morning January 15, the
Tomas Mendizabal.) Conferencia proceeded in ATLAPA with six plenary sessions of
oral presentations and an early evening poster session. One
session was devoted to Sustainable Archaeological Tourism,
Se seleccionaron tres temas para la Conferencia: (1) Interacción two to Interregional Interaction, and three to latest discoveries.
Interregional en las Américas entre dos o más Áreas Naciona- Four of the presenters were unable to attend at the last minute,
les; (2) Turismo Arqueológico Sostenible; y (3) Descubrimientos leaving room for a lively, engaged discussion between the
Recientes. El horario permitió incluir 36 charlas y 12 carteles. La speakers and audience members from around the Americas.
convocatoria para participar se envió a inicios del 2011 con una
fecha de entrega de propuestas en junio del mismo año. Se reci-
bieron tres veces más propuestas de las que se podían incluir y
el equipo completo evaluó las propuestas para ayudar en la
selección final. Esta se fundamentó en la relación de las ponen-
cias al tema, el interés más allá de las áreas locales y la distribu-
ción entre los países de Latinoamérica. Fue muy difícil escoger
entre tantos resúmenes de calidad. Las decisiones se enviaron
en julio 2011.
La parte final del programa fue la invitación de un prominente

arqueólogo latinoamericano para presentar la ponencia inaugu-
ral. El arqueólogo chileno, Lautaro Núñez aceptó nuestra solici-
tud. Él abrió la conferencia la noche del viernes 13 en el Centro
de Convenciones ATLAPA con una charla conmovedora titula-
da “En Torno a la Proyección Social de las Investigaciones
Arqueológicas en Latinoamérica”. Previo a la presentación
magistral el presidente de la SAA, Fred Limp, presentó los Pre- Figura 2: Tobi Brimsek a cargo de la Mesa Informativa y de Registro de la
mios Presidenciales—en castellano—a los tres autores de esta SAA mientras platicaba con Barbara Arroyo Co-organizadora de la Con-
nota por su trabajo en la organización de esta conferencia. La ferencia y Chris Dore disfrutando de una taza de café. (Tobi Brimsek staffs
presentación del profesor Núñez fue seguida por una generosa the SAA Table while speaking to Conferencia Co-organizer Barbara Arroyo
recepción. while Chris Dore enjoys a cup of coffee.)

Future meetings should definitely include planned discussion

time for each session.
The presentations covered the archaeology of almost all the

countries in Latin America. Most were on the prehispanic peri-
od, with some on historical archaeology topics. It was clear
from the papers and the subsequent exchanges that the selected
themes were both relevant and engaging. Sustainable Archaeo-
logical Tourism is becoming more doable every day, and it is a
practice that all archaeologists should strive to accomplish by
integrating our projects with local community interests—as the
Conferencia presenters for this theme so nicely illustrated. Par-
Figura 3: Los asistentes de la Conferencia disfrutaron de 36 presentaciones ticipants in the Inter-regional Interaction sessions showed how
orales como parte del programa de la reunión. (Conferencia attendees crucial this theme is to ground a more comprehensive vision of
enjoyed 36 oral presentations as part of the meeting program.) a Prehispanic world immersed in a complex network of
exchange of goods and ideas, contrary to many popular and
El sábado 14 y la mañana del domingo 15 de enero se realizó la “official” narratives in the Americas.
conferencia en ATLAPA, con seis sesiones plenarias de presen-
taciones orales y una sesión vespertina de carteles. Una sesión The presentations on Latest Discoveries reflected the great
estuvo dedicada al Turismo Arqueológico Sostenible, dos a la dynamism of recent archaeological investigation, the multitude
Interacción Interregional y tres a los descubrimientos recientes. of theoretical lenses and applied methodologies, the high quali-
A última hora, cuatro de los presentadores no pudieron asistir, ty of regional projects, and the arduous but necessary collabora-
permitiendo el espacio para una discusión interesante entre los tive work that awaits both archaeologists and local governments
ponentes y la audiencia de alrededor de América. Las futuras in the curation of recently recovered collections. It is our
reuniones deberán incluir tiempo de discusión para cada sesión. impression that the Conferencia demonstrated both a vigorous
state of health and a brilliant future for archaeology in Latin
Se dieron presentaciones sobre la arqueología, predominante- America.
mente del período Prehispánico, de casi todos los países de Lati-
noamérica. Quedó claro, tanto por las ponencias como por los In all, around 100 people from 19 countries attended the Con-
intercambios subsiguientes, lo apasionante y relevante de la ferencia. Post-conference feedback was strongly positive about
temática escogida. El turismo arqueológico sostenible se hace the event, providing important suggestions for improvement
cada día, no sólo más factible, sino que es un tema con el que and urging that the Conferencia be offered on a regular basis
los arqueólogos debemos lidiar cada vez más obligatoriamente, but in different venues. It is also clear from the Conferencia and
incluyendo en nuestros proyectos a las comunidades locales y the survey results that one of the most successful outcomes of
sus intereses, tal y como lo comprobaron los presentadores. Los the event was the rare opportunity to establish personal contacts
ponentes del tema de las interacciones interregionales mostra- between professionals from all the Americas.
ron lo crucial de esta temática en cimentar una visión más com-
pleta de las culturas del mundo Prehispánico, que no vivían en
el aislamiento sino inmersas en complejas redes de intercambio
de bienes e ideas, al contrario de lo que afirman todavía muchas
de las narrativas populares y “oficiales” en el continente. Los
últimos descubrimientos reflejaron la gran dinámica de la
investigación arqueológica, la multitud de los enfoques teóricos
y metodológicos aplicados, la alta calidad de los trabajos de
investigación en la región, y el arduo y necesario trabajo que
espera a la colaboración entre arqueólogos y gobiernos locales
para la curaduría de las colecciones recientemente traídas a la
luz. Es nuestra impresión que la Conferencia demostró un vigo-
roso estado de salud de la arqueología en Latinoamérica y su bri-
llante futuro. Figura4: Doce carteles ofrecieron temas para una amena conversación entre
los asistentes. (Twelve Posters provided topics for lively conversation among
>CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL, continued on page 14 attendees.)

VOLUNTEER PROFILE
volunteer profile:
Dan Sandweiss
W
hen I sat down to write my volunteer profile, I Research on SAAWeb. That is still a gap that needs filling. I next
searched the web for a pithy, out-of-copyright quota- served on the Program Committee for the 2003 Annual Meet-
tion on volunteering to start this piece. There are lots; ing, at which time I was invited to join the Committee on the
most say something to the effect that volunteering makes one a Americas (2003–2009, Chair 2005–2008). Since its founding in
better person (try: http://www.energizeinc.com/reflect/ the 1990s by Dick Drennan, COA has been an excellent bridge
quote1s.html). I like to think this is so, but the honest truth is between Latin and North American archaeologists who serve
that I volunteer for the SAA because I enjoy it. SAA committees jointly on the committee. During my time on COA, highlights
let me combine two things I both enjoy and care about deeply: included two symposia and an open session on the practice of
Latin American archaeology and organizing actions and events. archaeology in different parts of Latin America (Peru, Central
The latter passion is the dangerous one—I served on and America, and Peru again) and the establishment of the Award
chaired so many committees at my institution that for my sins, for Excellence in Latin American and Caribbean Archaeology.
I have been damned to life as an administrator. Working with the members of COA has been an enriching expe-
riences that helped extend my network of friends and colleagues
I joined SAA in 1980 as a new grad student and began attend- throughout the hemisphere.
ing the annual meetings in 1983. However, I got my first
“archaeological volunteering” fix outside the Society by organiz- To complete my confession, I served on the SAA Press Editori-
ing the archaeology brown bags at Yale as an undergrad in al Board from 2005–2008 and the Latin American Antiquity Edi-
1978–79 and at Cornell as a grad student from 1980–83 and torial Advisory Board from 2008 to present, chaired the SAA’s
1985–86. During that time, I first combined Latin American Latin American Antiquity Editor Search Task Force in 2009, and
archaeology and organization by founding the Northeast Con- have participated in COA’s Advisory Committee and the Publi-
ference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory and running cation Committee since 2009. Over the past two years, I served
the first meeting at Cornell in 1982. I’ve helped with five other as Special Advisor to the SAA Board, working closely with Bár-
versions, most recently the 30th NCAAE at the RS Peabody bara Arroyo, Tomás Mendizabal, Tobi Brimsek, and Fred Limp
Museum in Andover, MA—where the SAA was founded in to organize the Conferencia Intercontinental that took place in
1935. As a spin-off of the NCAAE, in 1987 I began the peer- Panama City, Panama in mid-January. The Conferencia was the
reviewed, interannual publication series Andean Past, now edit- first SAA-sponsored meeting run in Latin America, in Spanish,
ed by my colleague Monica Barnes. I’ve since co-organized designed by the Board to continue building bridges between
other, one-off meetings such as the 2002 Dumbarton Oaks Pre- archaeologists of the Americas.
Columbian symposium on El Niño, Catastrophism, and Culture
Change in Ancient America with Jeff Quilter. All of these volunteer activities have been enjoyable and person-
ally rewarding. Even if they haven’t made me a better person,
Although I began organizing symposia for the SAA annual they have certainly let me rub elbows with many great folks who
meeting in 1986, I was a slow starter in volunteering for share a passion for the past and a desire to serve. If you share
committees—probably because I didn’t know how to do it. My those traits, volunteering for the SAA is about as much fun as
first assignment was as assistant editor for Andean South you can have legally and in public.
America in 1998 for the abortive attempt to resurrect Current

ARTICLES
SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS

REGARDING THE PEOPLING OF THE AMERICAS
Amber D. Wheat
Amber Wheat is a graduate student in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee.
W
ithin the peer-reviewed literature concerning the peo- anthropological journals and a search of the program for the
pling of the New World, there are numerous debates 2011 Society for American Archaeology (SAA) annual meeting.
that are discussed persistently. Claims often are This latter search assisted in locating the names of individuals
referred to as being “accepted” or “rejected” by a majority, some- who are graduate students without publications, but are
times a vast majority, of researchers. For instance, the status of involved in relevant current research.
an archaeological site as “pre-Clovis” in age has long been the
source of many debates. Researchers commonly assert that E-mail addresses of selected individuals were obtained through
some sites are accepted (or rejected) as pre-Clovis by a majority professional society directories and from personal contacts with
of researchers. For example, Grayson (2004:379) stated, “the people conducting research in these areas. The survey was pro-
majority of archaeologists now seem to agree that Monte Verde vided electronically via a website provided by the Qualtrics sur-
has met the stringent excavation, dating, and reporting criteria vey program (www.qualtrics.com). A total of 215 individuals
that have long been in place for evaluating such sites” (empha- were contacted via e-mail. Nineteen questions comprised the
sis added). Similarly, Anderson (2005:32) argued, “while not all survey.
of these sites are universally accepted as early Paleoindian in
age, most researchers accept that pre-Clovis occupations are
increasingly probable” (emphasis added).
Survey Results
A total of 145 survey invitees started the survey, and 132 indi-
This tendency to appeal to broad authority occurs in other top- viduals completed the survey to the last question (whether they
ics relating to the human colonization of the Americas as well. answered each question or not). More than 80 percent of the
Another debate concerns the number of migrations that took participants identified themselves as conducting the majority of
place in the occupation of the Americas. Christy Turner their research in archaeology (n = 117; 171 invitations were sent
(2002:135) stated, “most workers in archaeology, linguistics, phys- to archaeologists). The remainder of participants identified as
ical anthropology, and more recently, genetics, favor a few genetic anthropologists (n = 11; 17 genetic anthropologists were
migrations rather than many” (emphasis added). solicited), skeletal biologists (n = 3; 10 invitations were sent), lin-
guists (n = 2), and 15 others who conduct research in other
Although some of these assessments of hypothesis statements areas, such as ecology and geology, were solicited to take the sur-
may in fact be true, without quantifiable evidence these claims vey; however, “other” was not given as an option of research
are essentially assertions and arguments from authority and (Table 1). Of the 145 respondents, 130 identified their current
opinion. Nevertheless, determining the number of researchers employment status (Table 2). There was some bias in this ques-
that accept or reject a claim is possible and can be quantified. tion, as some employment options, such as museum curation,
Thus, this paper sets out to assess the percentage of researchers were not included as response options. However, the majority of
that “accept or reject” a claim pertaining to the peopling of the the survey participants (89) were employed in a university aca-
Americas. demic position.
A web-based survey was provided to individuals who have con- Six of the survey questions pertained to the acceptance or rejec-
tributed data or models relating to the peopling of the Americas tion of assertions of pre- Clovis dates for six sites: Meadowcroft,
through peer-reviewed publications and/or professional presen- Monte Verde, Topper, Cactus Hill, Paisley Cave, and Debra L.
tations. These survey participants were identified through a lit- Friedkin (formerly Buttermilk Creek). Three response choices
erature and keyword search of archaeological and physical of agree, neither agree nor disagree, or disagree were given, and

ARTICLES
Table 1. Number of Individuals Contacted and Number of Survey Responders in Each Research Area.
Number of responders in research area Total number of individuals

Research area (% of total responders) contacted in research area
Archaeology 117 (88) 171
Biological anthropology– skeletal biology 3 (2) 10
Biological anthropology– molecular research 11 (8) 17
Linguistics 2 (2) 2
Other NA 15
TOTAL 133 215
(12 did not respond to question)
results are presented in Figure 1. A major research article 111 archaeologists favor an earlier arrival (56 percent) over a
(Waters et al. 2011) on the Friedkin site was published during later arrival (44 percent). In contrast, of the remaining 17
the time period in which the survey was administered, and so responses from individuals from other disciplines, 71 percent
responses to the survey question associated with the site have favored an earlier arrival. In other words, archaeologists that
been excluded from analysis on account of biased responses responded to the survey were less likely to accept an earlier
that could have occurred as a result of the publication. Of the arrival than those individuals of another discipline.
five remaining sites, Monte Verde has the greatest rate of
acceptance as a pre-Clovis site with 67 percent accepting it as Figure 2 shows the results of the survey question in which par-
pre-Clovis, 10 percent rejecting its dating, and 23 percent nei- ticipants designated the number of discrete human migratory
ther agreeing nor disagreeing that it is a pre-Clovis site. Paisley events that took place into the Americas during the Late Pleis-
Cave was the second most accepted pre-Clovis site, with 43 per- tocene. The majority of respondents (35 percent) chose “more
cent acceptance. Topper had the highest number of rejections, than four,” followed by 28 percent choosing the “two migra-
with 37 percent disagreeing with its dating as a pre-Clovis site, tions” response. Of the archaeologists that answered this ques-
15 percent accepting it as pre- Clovis, and 48 percent neither tion (n = 106), 39 percent argued for two migrations, and 37 per-
agreeing nor disagreeing. cent argued for more than four migrations. The genetic anthro-
pologists (n = 8) had a different opinion, with 50 percent argu-
Following the questions pertaining to the pre-Clovis sites, par- ing for one migration, and 25 percent arguing for two and three
ticipants were given the opportunity to list other sites not migrations. “Migration” was not explicitly defined, and so there
included in the survey that they accept as pre-Clovis. Sixty par- may be some ambiguity in how survey participants defined a
ticipants responded and the top five most mentioned sites were migratory event, which in turn may have influenced the differ-
Swan Point (n = 10), Schaefer (n = 9), Heboir (n = 9), Page-Lad- ences in responses between groups.
son (n = 8), and Gualt/Buttermilk Creek (n = 7); note that But-
termilk Creek was recently renamed Debra L. Friedkin, rein- Related to the question about migratory events, a follow-up
forcing the decision to exclude it from analysis. question was asked about the migratory route or routes used by
humans to travel into the Americas during the Pleistocene.
One hundred twenty-eight responses were obtained for the Each respondent could select multiple answers for this ques-
question that asked, “When do you think people first arrived in tion, and 129 individuals responded.
the Americas?” Fifty-eight percent chose before 15,000 cal year
B.P., while 42 percent chose after 15,000 cal year B.P. When just An overwhelming majority (86 percent) selected “coastal migra-
examining the archaeologist’s responses a slight majority of the tion,” and “Interior passage migration (Ice free corridor)” was
chosen by 65 percent of participants.
Table 2. Number of Survey Responders in
Each Area of Employment.
Tied to both the timing of entry into the Americas, the survey
Number of responders in employment asked participants to identify the major cause for the extinction
Current Employment area (% of total responders) of Pleistocene megafauna. Sixty-three percent of the partici-
pants favored “a combination of factors.” Of the 112 archaeolo-
Academia 89(68)
CRM 23 (18) gists that responded to this question, only one person chose “A
Student 18 (14) comet/asteroid impact” as a response: a recent theory that has
TOTAL 130 itself generated appreciable controversy (Buchanan et al. 2008;
(15 did not respond to question) Firestone et al. 2007; Kerr 2008, 2010).

ARTICLES
agree nor disagree,” 23 percent agreed, and 10 percent disagreed.

The last question, “do you think the Beringian Standstill hypoth-
esis is an adequate explanation for the biological and linguistic
diversity of the New World?” was answered by 71 of the 73
respondents. Forty-eight percent of the respondents were unde-
cided, and 32 percent did not think the hypothesis offers an ade-
quate explanation, while 20 percent did. When only looking at
the responses from those participants that conduct the most
research in archaeology (i.e., individuals that indicated their
research pertained to archaeology; n = 60), 50 percent chose
“undecided,” 33 percent chose “no,” and 17 percent chose “yes.”
This was very different from the respondents that conduct the
most research in genetic anthropology (n = 8). Fifty percent of
the genetic anthropologists chose “yesm” 38 percent chose
“undecided,” and 13 percent chose “no” as their response to the
Figure 1. Survey responses regarding the acceptance of archaeological sites as last question (Figure 3).
having components dating to before Clovis (i.e., pre-Clovis sites).
Implications of the Survey

The last three questions of the survey pertained to the Beringian
Standstill Hypothesis (Tamm et al. 2007), which proposes that The results of this study indicate that a variety of views exist
New World populations were isolated from their Old World about the peopling of the Americas. While scientific results are
source populations for a long period of time (10,000–20,000 not determined by popularity, an examination of general con-
years) creating distinct mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplo- sensus surrounding major topics of inquiry regarding the peo-
types not seen in the Old World source population (Anderson pling of the Americas is informative and relates to how
2010; Kemp and Schurr 2010; Meltzer 2009; Tamm et al. 2007). researchers decide which scientific questions should be pur-
This was a filtered set of questions so that only those participants sued. Thus, this paper succeeds in its stated goal of quantifying
that were actually aware of the hypothesis were asked further the opinions of researchers concerning particular topics of reg-
questions. Therefore, the first question asked, “Are you aware of ular debate.
the Beringian Standstill hypothesis?” Of the 129 respondents
that answered the question, 73 of them chose “yes” as their Despite qualitative arguments made by Anderson (2005:32) and
response and were subsequently directed to answer two more Grayson (2004:379) that asserted a majority of researchers
questions. The first stated, “The Beringian Standstill hypothesis accept a pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas, the survey indi-
is correct.” Of the 73 total respondents, 67 percent chose “neither cated that this acceptance is dependent on the site under con-
sideration. Monte Verde is the most widely accepted with 67
percent of survey respondents supporting a pre-Clovis occupa-
tion. It is apparent that the majority of the researchers sampled
is unsure or have yet to form an opinion about the “pre-Clovis”
assignment of the four other sites analyzed. In fact, for each of
these sites higher percentages of participants chose “neither
agree nor disagree” over the “agree” and “disagree” choices, with
some sites, such as Topper, receiving very little acceptance
among respondents. Results also show that there is a nearly
direct relationship between the number of researchers accept-
ing a site as Pre-Clovis and extent of detailed publications avail-
able for that site, with the possible exception of Paisley Cave
(Adovasio and Carlisle 1988; Adovasio et al. 1990; Adovasio et al.
1978; Dillehay 1989, 1997; Dillehay and Collins 1991; Dillehay
et al. 2008; Grayson 2004).
Figure 2. Responses of archaeologists versus genetic anthropologists regard- Although Turner (2002:135) stated that “most workers in archae-
ing the number of migratory events thought to have occurred in the colo- ology, linguistics, physical anthropology, and more recently,
nization of the Americas. genetics, favor a few migrations rather than many” (emphasis

ARTICLES
(Anderson and Gillam 2000; Mandryk et al. 2001; Meltzer 2009;

Pitblado 2011; Surovell 2003).
In relation to the single migration model, the Beringian Stand-

still Hypothesis, or Beringian Incubation Model (BIM), propos-
es that New World populations were isolated from their Old
World source populations for a long period of time
(10,000–20,000 years) (Anderson 2010; Kemp and Schurr 2010;
Meltzer 2009; Tamm et al. 2007). Fifty percent of the genetic
anthropologists that participated in the study accepted the
Beringian Standstill Hypothesis as an adequate explanation for
the biological and linguistic diversity of the New World. In con-
trast, 67 percent of the archaeologists rejected the hypothesis, as
well as all of the linguists and skeletal biologists. This is not a
Figure 3. Responses of archaeologists versus genetic anthropologists regard-
surprise due to the lack of archaeological evidence for a long
ing the adequacy of the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis as an explanation
occupation of Beringia (Goebel 2004; Goebel and Slobodin
for the biological and linguistic diversity of the New World.
1999) as well as a lack of evidence to support the morphological
diversity among early and late Pelaeoindian crania (González-
José et al. 2008; Hubbe et al. 2011; Jantz and Owsley 2001,
added), the current survey suggests that this is not the case. In 2005).
fact, 35 percent of researchers favor more than four migrations,
while only 28 percent of respondents favor two migrations. This is the first systematic survey of researchers who work on
Moreover, archaeologists tended to be split in their support of questions relating to the peopling of the Americas that address-
“two migrations” and “more than four,” while 50 percent of the es topics that are contentious and debated in their area of expert-
genetic anthropologists chose “one migration.” This high ise. These results, while admittedly limited by sample size and
degree of support for “one migration” among geneticists echoes degree of response, indicate that some agreement on at least
the current genetic research that argues for a single founder some topics exists across different subdisciplines, but that
event giving rise to all genetic diversity in New World indige- appreciable differences of opinion exist within and among
nous populations, therefore making more than one migration researchers in differing areas of anthropology.
(from a genetic perspective) unlikely (Kemp and Schurr 2010;
Tamm et al. 2007). Overall, it is important to point out that there is a majority con-
sensus on some debates. For instance, there seems to be a high
The researchers were able to choose more than one answer for degree of acceptance (86 percent) for a coastal migration route.
the migration route question, and the two most popular answers Also, there is a majority acceptance for a pre-Clovis occupation
were the coastal migration and the interior passage migration. A of Monte Verde, with 67 percent of participants agreeing and 11
coastal migration route was the most supported by researchers percent disagreeing. However, while there is some consensus
(86 percent in the sample), which is especially interesting, as this about several issues, there is an appreciable amount of uncer-
model has gained significant ground only in the last three tainty for many of the topics of inquiry. For instance, there is
decades (Fladmark 1983). These responses are consistent with more uncertainty about the status of most of the pre-Clovis sites
the most current archaeological and genetic data. If the single than there is either acceptance and/or rejection. This is perhaps
migration argument is accepted, the approximate timing for as it should be, since dogmatism or absolute certainty can at
entrance into the Americas that is consistent with genetic data is times be antithetical to good science, and suggests support is
15,000–20,000 cal yr B.P.; this was prior to the inferred opening only given or denied after careful consideration and adequate
of (and therefore passage through) the ice-free Mackenzie Corri- access to the data. A more significant result of this study is that
dor (Kemp and Schurr 2010; Mandryk et al. 2001; Meltzer 2009), it demonstrates that scholars should take care when making
and would be consistent with a Pacific coast migration. However, pronouncements about the general acceptance or rejection of a
the archaeological evidence, notably the presence of early sites in claim without some type of quantifiable evidence. More surveys
the Nenana Valley ca. 14,000 years ago (Hoffecker et al.1993; Pow- should be conducted to provide numerical data to support
ers and Hoffecker 1989), is likely the reason why a majority of claims of majority opinions as well as to better understand the
participants also agree with inland migration through the diversity in opinions held by researchers. As noted above, the
Mackenzie Corridor, which became passable around that time. perceptions of researchers about the validity of various hypothe-
Therefore, both routes are plausible given the evidence at hand ses dictate which are examined. If these opinions differ among

ARTICLES
researchers and disciplines, this divergence in thought may cre- the Americas’ Past. In Human Variation in the Americas: The
ate impediments to collaborative investigations. Auerbach Integration of Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, edited
(2010:9) recently argued this point, stating that “better resolu- by B. M. Auerbach, pp. 1–11. Occasional Paper 38. Center for
tions to these questions [about human colonization of the Archaeological Investigations,Southern Illinois University,
Americas] are inevitable” only with discourse and collaboration Carbondale
among disciplines. The only way to obtain a 100 percent agree- Grayson, D. K.
ment concerning these topics is to continue to collaborate so 2004 Monte Verde, Field Archaeology, and the Human Coloniza-
tion of the Americas. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and
that improved research will direct us to the most accurate
Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by D. B.
understanding of the peopling of the Americas.
Madsen, pp. 379–388. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Acknowledgements. A special thanks to David G. Anderson and
Turner, Christy G., II
Benjamin M. Auerbach for helpful comments on an earlier 2002 Teeth, Needles, Dogs, and Siberia: Bioarchaeological Evidence
draft of this paper. Thanks to all of my fellow classmates from for the Colonization of the New World. In The First Ameri-
the Peopling of the Americas course in which the idea of this cans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by
survey evolved in part through conversations with all of you. N. G. Jablonski, pp. 123–158. Memoir 27. California Academy
Also, thank you to the anonymous respondents to the survey. of Sciences, San Francisco.
Michael R. Waters, Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C.
Nordt, Steven G. Driese, Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L.
References Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson,
Anderson, David G. Charles T. Hallmark, Michael B. Collins, and James E.
2005 Pleistocene Human Occupation of the Southeastern United Wiederhold
States: Research Directions for the Early 21st Century. In 2011 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at
Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnich- the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331:1599–1603. vol.
sen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford and M. R. Waters, pp. 29–42. 331.
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M, Col-
lege Station, Texas. For a complete list of references cited, please contact Amber D. Wheat
Auerbach, Benjamin M. at [email protected]. Raw survey data is accessible at www.pidba.org.
2010 Finding Common Ground in the Archaeology and Biology of
CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL, from page 8 <
En total asistieron 100 personas de 19 países a la Conferencia. Se The three of us enjoyed organizing the Conferencia. Of course,
solicitó retroalimentación después del evento a los participantes, the lion’s share of the work fell on one of us (Tomás) and on Tobi
la cual arrojó resultados sumamente positivos, proporcionando Brimsek, both of whom worked well above and beyond the call
importantes sugerencias para la mejora de futuras reuniones of duty.
además de recomendar vigorosamente que la Conferencia fuera
ofrecida de manera regular pero en diferentes lugares. También We thank the local sponsors for The Conferencia Interconti-
se hizo evidente, tanto en la conferencia como en los resultados nental: Panama’s INAC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura), STRI
de la encuesta, que el evento fue una singular oportunidad de (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute), the Patronato de
establecer contactos personales entre los profesionales del conti- Panamá Viejo, and the Canal de Panamá.
nente, lo que fue otro de sus aspectos más exitosos.
Los tres disfrutamos mucho al organizar la Conferencia. Por

supuesto que el mayor esfuerzo del trabajo descansó en uno de
nosotros (Tomás) y en Tobi Brimsek, quienes trabajaron más
allá de sus obligaciones.
Se agradece a los patrocinadores locales de la Conferencia Inter-

continental: el Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INAC), , el Insti-
tuto Smithsonian de Investigaciones Tropicales (STRI), el Patro-
nato Panamá Viejo y la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá.

ARTICLES
EXPERIMENT MEETS RECREATION

THROWING SPEARS WITH THE PUBLIC
John C. Whittaker
John C. Whittaker (Ph.D. Arizona 1984) teaches at Grinnell College,
where he is “coach” of the Raging Cows, the world’s first collegiate atlatl team.
A
s archaeologists are challenged to engage more of the public, and different publics, we often complain that
these publics watch too many History Channel Specials instead of reading American Antiquity, prefer tall
tales to site reports, collect artifacts instead of admiring them in museums, or just don’t give a darn about
the past. Sometimes it is good to set aside our professorial attitudes, and recognize in fact, there are some connec-
tions that can be made easily with existing publics who value archaeological information. A few prehistoric tech-
nologies have found a place in the recreational activities of a surprising number of Americans. Archaeologists who
know something about the context and history of these technologies have an immediate “hook” among some non-
academic practitioners.
I have a particular favorite: when you despair of fascinating your neighbor with dusty sherds, French buzzwords,
and complex graphs showing the percent of Mays pollen in storage pits, try an atlatl. The current florescence of pop-
ular interest in “primitive skills” has produced an explosion of local and national groups with a wide range of inter-
ests and knowledge bases, some of which are very welcoming to more academic input and membership. One of
these is the world of recreational atlatls, with which I have been involved for more than 15 years. The satisfying
thwack of a dart striking a target has served me well in teaching and research, and in connecting myself and stu-
dents with a non-academic world of appreciative and interesting friends.
Atlatls, or spear throwers, preceded the bow in most areas of the world and survived to the present in a few ethno-
graphic areas. An atlatl is essentially a stick with a hook on one end and a grip on the other. As a lever, the atlatl
gives a mechanical advantage that allows you to fling a light spear much further than by hand alone.
Atlatls are ideal for teaching about early technologies. A simple spear thrower is easy to make, even for the major-
ity of modern students who have more experience with computer games than with woodworking. They are easy to
understand, even for a guy like me whose competence began to falter with the internal combustion engine, and
takes a long walk when it comes to computers. Although atlatls are simple enough for any Luddite, there are many
ethnographic and archaeological variations, some of which are elaborate and spectacular. No technology is merely
an artifact. To use any technology you need to understand how to work it, and you need some skill in doing so. The
active skill of use you can only acquire through practice, which is why I can barely answer my cell phone without
pinching my finger and accidentally photographing the floor. Atlatls are simple enough that beginners can imme-
diately send a dart down range and feel a sense of accomplishment, but they simultaneously recognize that to devel-
op real skill requires a lot of practice. Understanding the knowledge and physical skills behind making or using
any artifact is a critical prerequisite to evaluating it in its cultural context, and to developing respect for its prehis-
toric users.
Teaching and research are connected in my mind. Studying atlatls archaeologically involves questions of how we
reconstruct artifacts from surviving fragments, interpreting the contexts of their use, and experimenting to under-
stand their capabilities. Students can easily design simple experiments with atlatls by systematically varying length,
flexibility, the placement of weights, the characteristics of the associated projectiles, and so on. These are all issues
of active interest and research at many levels of seriousness, from unfounded speculation to carefully controlled

ARTICLES
experimentation, from naked eye observation to high speed photography, from

guesswork to mathematical modeling of physical principles. I have published
atlatl experiments and archaeological observations, sometimes with the col-
laboration of students and non-archaeological friends (Whittaker and Magin-
niss 2006; Whittaker et al. 2008), and I maintain a large annotated bibliogra-
phy of atlatl literature, which can be found through the World Atlatl Associa-
tion webpage or at http://web.grinnell.edu/anthropology/Faculty/johnw.html.
Experimental archaeology is usually less complicated and produces results
sooner than excavation, and although “middle range research” is disdained by
the current breed of theorists, it remains fundamental to all archaeological
interpretations. While exploring atlatls, students can learn good science, and
the habit of searching for and evaluating competing ideas in the literature.
And we should not neglect the value of fun. Those who go into archaeology
hoping to become millionaires are even less in tune with the real world than
most academics, and few of us in the field teach just to earn our daily bread.
Accordingly, I feel free to focus on things that interest me and my students.
Active participation, working with artifacts, and learning to evaluate them crit-
ically usually excites me and my students more than the latest convoluted the-
Figure 1 Larry Kinsella, Crabtree Award recipient
oretical posturing.
2010, explains atlatls to the public at Cahokia.
Fun—adventure, exploration, experimenting with different ideas for living and different skills—is also what creates
a non-academic interest in archaeology. Atlatling (the sport has yet to find a really good verb) is a challenging and
safe target sport, and as more atlatlists develop adequate skills, it is becoming legal for recreational hunting in a
few states. There is a growing social world of atlatlists, united in part by the power of the Internet through web-
pages and electronic forums. There are local and international organizations, of which the most prominent is the
World Atlatl Association (WAA). Local groups organize 60 or 70 events in the U.S. yearly, and another couple dozen
in Europe. The WAA and other organizations keep some records of events, print newsletters, and maintain web-
pages (see http://www.worldatlatl.org/atlatl).
I practice seriously, which is necessary to achieve some skill if you want to test atlatls, and also a good way to relax
with students and friends after dealing with classes and college politics all day.
A few atlatlists are engaged in competing and achieving high scores in the
WAA’s International Standard Accuracy Competition, and a few other events
where records are kept. I have been in the world’s top 10 ISAC scores two
years. Of course “World” is a tiny little world of very limited glory, but analyz-
ing 8 years of ISAC scores suggested that the better modern atlatlists are now
competent enough to compare to prehistoric users and adequately test the
capabilities of atlatls in general (Whittaker 2010; Whittaker and Kamp 2006).
However, competitions at events are friendly and supportive, and events are
open to all. Opportunities for newcomers to try atlatls and be recruited are a
feature of most events. I host an event for my students and others at Grinnell
College in the Spring, and regularly take a team of students to a Fall event at
Cahokia, where they see one of the world’s great archaeological sites.
At atlatl events, my students also meet other members of the world of atlatlists,
where it is easy to find friends and people who are interested in what we know
as archaeologists. Among them are people of all backgrounds who have
worked hard to develop throwing skills and often do some serious experimen-
tation. Their experiments are sometimes published in newsletters like the
Figure 2 Richard Lyons of the World Atlatl Associa- WAAs, but more often inform discussions on web sites like Paleoplanet
tion explains his display of atlatl types to the public. (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/).

ARTICLES
I suspect that some of my academic friends shy away from

becoming proficient knappers or atlatlists, or potters, or
even ethnographers, because learning the skills of a craft or
a language requires a prohibitive investment of time and
effort in a busy scholarly life. But the world of atlatlists (and
other “primitive skills” enthusiasts) includes many who
would be eager and helpful collaborators in archaeological
experiments. With some notable exceptions, archaeologists
remain slow to make connections with vocational experi-
menters. If more archaeologists would read the ephemera
produced by the non-academic atlatlists, or spend a day at
an event witnessing the range of skills and styles, we would
see less-published nonsense about how atlatls are so inac-
curate they can only be used against herds, or how the flex
of the atlatl led to the invention of the bow, or how they
must be used side-arm at ranges of 7–8 feet. The same is
true of many early technologies. We don’t have to be expert
practitioners to analyze them, although a bit of experience Figure 3 The author introducing visitors from the SAA annual meetings
goes a long way, but it is simply lazy scholarship not to take to atlatls at Cahokia, 2010.
advantage of the readily available expertise of others.
Even bumblers from the university can gain the ear of those who are mainly interested in practicing a technology
if we are willing to share our knowledge. We have access to specialized literature, and in my experience, many
atlatlists are keenly interested in the details of archaeological finds, interpretations of their contexts, hypothetical
reconstructions of artifacts, and prehistoric life in general, even if their efforts are focused on hitting the target
more consistently.
In the longer view, there are important public relations benefits to participating in the florescence of recreational
primitive skills. As all fieldworkers know, it is hard not to form bonds among those who get their hands dirty togeth-
er. The archaeologist who participates in an informal group of fanatics like atlatlists or flintknappers finds a shared
interest that overcomes many differences of opinion and outlook. I like to think that some of my friends no longer
see all archaeologists as distant pedants, or members of the “arrowhead police” who hate all amateurs, or opponents
of progress who live to prevent construction projects. If we wish to reach members of the public, we must interest
them; if we want public support, we must engage them. There is no better way than through shared play.
References Cited
Whittaker, John C.
2010 Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology. In Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology:
Examining Technology Through Production and Use, Jeff Ferguson, editor., pp. 195–224. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder.
Whittaker, John, Byl Bryce, and Chuck LaRue
2008 Atlatl Hunting with the Basketmakers. The Atlatl 21(4):4–6, and posted URL:
http://www.worldatlatl.org/art/Album/Southwestern_RockArt.htm
Whittaker, John and Kathryn Kamp
2006 Primitive Weapons and Modern Sport: Atlatl Capabilities, Learning, Gender, and Age. Plains Anthropologist
51(198):213–221.
2007 How Fast Does a Dart Go? The Atlatl 20(2):13-15.
Whittaker, John, and Andrew Maginniss
2006 Atlatl Flex: Irrelevant. The Atlatl 19(2):1–3.

ARTICLES
PROYECTO QOCHAMAMA?
EXPERIENCES, PERCEPTIONS, AND REPRESENTATIONS OF
THREE FEMALE CO-DIRECTORS AT TIWANAKU, BOLIVIA
Maria C. Bruno, Nicole C. Couture, and Deborah E. Blom
Maria C. Bruno is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Dickinson College. Nicole C. Couture is an Associate Professor of
Anthropology at McGill University. Deborah E. Blom is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Vermont.
B
etween 2005 and 2010 we codirected an interdisciplinary field project at Tiwanaku, a UNESCO World Her-
itage site in the Andean region of Bolivia. During the first millennium, the ancient city of Tiwanaku was the
political and ritual center of one of the first states in South America (Kolata 2003). Today, Tiwanaku is one of
Bolivia’s most important tourist destinations (Sammells 2012). The indigenous Aymara also revere the site and
identify themselves as descendents of the site’s inhabitants. Given its importance in Andean prehistory and its
prominent status in Bolivian history, Tiwanaku has been the location of many national and international archaeo-
logical projects.
We founded the Proyecto Jacha Marka (PJM) as a long-term interdisciplinary field and laboratory project focused
on the intensive study of the Mollo Kontu neighborhood at Tiwanaku. The purpose of this research was to exam-
ine the ways in which different forms of social identity and affiliation (e.g., age, class, sex, kinship, and ethnicity)
were forged through the practice of daily life, including the construction and renovation of domestic structures, use
of monumental architecture, diet and cuisine, ritual practices, and the organization of urban space within a non-
elite neighborhood.
Within the context of Tiwanaku research and Bolivian archaeology in general, our project was unique in that it was
the first to be directed by three women. Previous projects at the site included women as lead excavators, laborato-
ry specialists, and senior collaborators; however, as can often be the case with major archaeological projects at
prominent sites around the world, project directors and principal investigators at Tiwanaku more commonly had
been individual males. As part of the COSWA-sponsored series on women archaeologists in the field, we share a
few of our experiences as three, female co-directors. Although colleagues in the field have certainly made note of
our gender, we have never been significantly hindered in our fieldwork due to sexual discrimination. Our greatest
challenges have come primarily from the fact that there were three of us.
Proyecto Qochamama/Pachamama
For the most part, we did not experience any prejudice or doubts that women could run a successful project in
Bolivia. Although there have not been female directors of major field projects at Tiwanaku itself, there have been
several influential women running archaeological projects in Bolivia. For example, Christine Hastorf (1999) has
directed a large, international project on the Taraco Peninsula since 1992, and Bolivian archaeologists such as Sonia
Alconini (2008) and Claudia Rivera (2010) have also directed projects in other regions of Bolivia. Overall, the Boli-
vian governmental authorities seemed to treat us as any other group of project directors seeking permission to work
in their country. Some, however, highlighted the fact that the project was run by women and openly referred to us
as “Proyecto Qochamama” and “Proyecto Pachamama,” and others noted that our research area had particularly
feminine qualities.
This article is part of an occasional column on Women Archaeologists in the Field sponsored by COSWA.

ARTICLES
In Bolivia, Qochamama roughly means

“mother of the qochas,” and in this context
refers to the numerous artificial ponds of
water found in the Mollo Kontu area at
Tiwanaku. It is also the name of a stela report-
edly found in the area. In part for these rea-
sons, some yatiri (ritual specialists) claim the
Mollo Kontu area is “feminine,” and there-
fore “a little dangerous and powerful” and in
need of more ritual attention than other
areas. The other term used to label us,
Pachamama, translates as Earth Mother, a
female deity in Andean cosmology who is
associated with agriculture, fertility, and
reproduction. Before any archaeological proj-
ect begins in the highlands, yatiri prepare an
offering for Pachamama that includes a llama
fetus, coca leaves, candy, and other items. It is
burned and buried to assure that the project
will be successful because, after all, excava-
tions require digging into and taking objects Figure 1: The three project directors (Left to Right): Nicole Couture, Deborah Blom, and
Maria Bruno.
from the earth.
Since we were unaware of any such nicknames used to linguistically mark male-dominated projects, we took these
as potentially chauvinistic terms but we also understood them as something of a compliment. Qochas are precious
resources in the arid altiplano, and Pachamama is a highly revered entity; in fact, President Evo Morales named his
new environmental policy law after her. So while the nicknames clearly signaled that we were women, we gladly
accepted them and the responsibilities that accompanied them.
Three’s Company?
The most noteworthy challenge we faced was not the fact that we were women, but that we were three codirectors.
At Tiwanaku and elsewhere, it is most common to have single site directors, though there are several projects with
two directors. That this tripartite configuration did not conform to popular perceptions and representations of
archaeological field directors was particularly evident during our participation in the filming of an episode of the
Discovery Channel series “Bone Detectives” in July of 2008. The host and “detective” of the show is a lone male
archaeologist who helps solve unusual or “mysterious” burials encountered on excavations in different parts of the
world. In the case of Tiwanaku, the focus was on a set of children’s remains we encountered at the base of the Mollo
Kontu platform mound structure. We agreed to participate in this program because it would bring our project and
Tiwanaku archaeology to a broader audience; however, handing over the representation of our work to non-archae-
ological writers and directors did present some challenges and frustrations.
In preparation for this television project, we had decided that we would like to be filmed together in some segments
of the program to show that we were a team of directors that worked collaboratively to both run the project and
interpret the findings. To accommodate the “detective story” that the writers had prepared about the mound buri-
als, it was necessary to film each of us, and other project members, individually to discuss the various pieces of evi-
dence. These interviews did reflect our particular areas of expertise: Nicole Couture discussed the architecture of
the mound and the unusual layout of the burials; Deborah Blom provided an analysis of the human remains; and
Maria Bruno discussed the plant remains. During filming we were encouraged to develop and articulate our own
particular lines of interpretation and, in some instances, it seemed that we were being pushed to contradict each
other. This may have simply been for dramatic effect and not meant to be confrontational, but we were wary about
playing into outdated stereotypes that assert that strong, professional women cannot get along or that differences

ARTICLES
in opinion between scholars are antagonistic.

The focus on individuals began to frustrate us,
and we insisted that they also film the reality of
us discussing these ideas as a group. While they
did fulfill our request, this footage did not make
it to the actual episode. Instead the only indica-
tion that we were each directors of the project
came in the title that flashed on the screen as we
were each introduced. In the end, it was a lost
opportunity to show the diversity and variability
of how modern-day archaeological projects can
be, and increasingly are, directed.
The reality is that codirectorship can be messy.

In the field, we were often moving between on-
site excavations, laboratory, and field house indi-
vidually. As we visited each of our hard-working
teams, we would be asked questions about how
to proceed on a particular task. Given that we
each came from different field experiences and
analytical specialties, in the early days of the Figure 2: Mario Bruno conducting flotation analysis.
project it was not uncommon for us to give con-
tradictory advice. We quickly learned that this
could be problematic and worked to remedy the situation. While the ideal situation would have been for us to meet,
discuss, and come to a consensual decision, this was not always possible. After a few contentious situations, we
determined that we had to divide particular responsibilities and trust each person’s decision. For particularly impor-
tant queries, however, we would take the extra time to meet together and discuss them as a group. Moreover, there
were certain tasks, such as meeting with community leaders or government officials to negotiate permits, which
required a public expression of authority and unity. In these situations it was very nice to have each other’s support
and to present ourselves as a formidable, Pachamama-worthy front.
We continue to learn how to share leadership

responsibilities as the focus of our project
makes the transition from the world of field-
work to the dissemination of our research find-
ings, including coauthored publications. While
interdisciplinary research is becoming more
common in the humanities and social sciences,
few anthropology departments have clear guide-
lines for evaluating collaborative scholarship. In
negotiating authorship, we strive to find a bal-
ance between ensuring that all get full credit for
their work and, at the same time, support each
other in our various states of professional and
personal development.
Conclusion
A project led by three female codirectors was
unique at Tiwanaku, Bolivia and is perhaps still
quite rare in most parts of the world. We believe,
Figure 3: Deboral Blom and Ruth Fontenla at work in the field. however, that it reflects a growing trend in the

ARTICLES
diversification and increasingly collaborative nature of archaeology in the twenty-first century. We cannot deny the
complex interactions of factors such as gender, race, class, and education, but our acceptance by Bolivian authori-
ties and indigenous community leaders as female directors of a large project at the most prestigious archaeologi-
cal site in their country shows that gender is not the primary concern in this context. Perhaps our work was facili-
tated in part by the fact that there are important cultural entities such as Pachamama and Qochamama that engen-
der powerful female roles. It is undeniably due to the fact that we followed in the footsteps of other successful
women archaeologists in Bolivia. Finally, we were all fortunate to have had mentors (both male and female) who
encouraged us to take on such leadership roles.
Our experiences are not necessarily unique to us being female, but apply to any project that has multiple directors.
While we have learned that the time and cooperation required for this kind of research should not be underesti-
mated, we have also found that collaboration is immensely satisfying and the results gained from it are far greater
than one could accomplish on one’s own. Sharing these experiences with our colleagues and working to find new
means to represent this type of collaborative directorship will be an important goal for us in the future.
Acknowledgments. Proyecto Jacha Marka is grateful for the financial support of the H. John Heinz III Fund, the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Standard Research Grant #410-2006-1803), the Cana-
dian Foundation for Innovation (Infrastructure Grant #202493) the Fond de recherche du Québec sur la société et
la culture (Programme Establissment de nouveaux professeurs-chercheurs #116296), and the Canada Research
Chair Programme. The authors also express their gratitude to state and local organizations in Bolivia for granting
permission to carry out archaeological research at Tiwanaku, including the Unidad Nacional de Arqueología de
Bolivia, The Community of Wankollo, El Gobierno Municipal de Tiahuanaco and El Consejo de Ayllus y Comu-
nidades Originarios de Tiwanaku.
References Cited
Alconini, Sonia
2008 Dis-embedded Centers and Architecture of Power in the Fringes of the Inka Empire: New Perspectives on Territorial
and Hegemonic Strategies of Domination. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:63–81.
Hastorf, Christine
1999 Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. University of California, Berkeley
Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.
Kolata, Alan L. (editor)
2003 Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of and Andean Civilization, Volume 2. Smithsonian Press,
Washington, D.C.
Rivera, Claudia
2010 Forms of Imperial Control and the Negotiation of Local Autonomy in the Cinti Valley of Bolivia. In Distant Provinces in
the Inka Empire. Toward a Deeper Understanding of Inka Imperialism, edited by Michael A. Malpass and Sonia Alconini,
pp. 151–172. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Sammells, Clare
2012 The City of the Present in the City of the Past: Solstice Celebrations at Tiwanaku, Bolivia. In On Location: Heritage
Cities and Sites, edited by D. Fairchild Ruggles, pp. 115–130. Springer, New York.

CAREERS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
TAKING THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

PUBLIC OUTREACH THROUGH MEDIA AND THE INTERNET
Richard M. (Rick) Pettigrew
Rick Pettigrew is President and Executive Director of Archaeological Legacy Institute, Eugene, Oregon
I
n 1999, I was 51 years old, past the midpoint of my archae- I decided to become an archaeologist. In high school, the phys-
ology career, and facing a watershed moment. My three-year ical sciences, mathematics, and technology appealed to me
stint in eastern Oregon as cultural resources coordinator for more. When I enrolled at Stanford University in 1966, it was as
the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs was drawing to a a physics major.
close. These years had been some of the happiest and most
rewarding in my career. The Tribes were working to relicense a Empirical evidence and the scientific approach to discovery was
series of hydroelectric dams on the Deschutes River, which the only satisfying way of seeking knowledge to me then and
flows alongside their reservation, and I was in charge of the remains so for me now. I took my first computer programming
archaeological research program. The project yielded important class at Stanford in 1967, when one computer occupied an
new information about prehistory in the Deschutes River valley, entire building! I interned at nearby NASA/Ames Research
while at the same time demonstrating the value of archaeology Center in the summer of 1968.
to the native peoples living where our research took place. For
me, showing that archaeology is much more than an academic However, Stanford also exposed me to the social sciences. This
pursuit, that it can produce tangible benefits for real people, has was in the late 1960s, when students of my generation were
always been fundamentally important. questioning everything. I became very interested in people and
why they do what they do. I took classes in sociology, anthro-
But now I felt pressure to make a choice. Should I continue to pology, and psychology. After two years, I switched my major to
pursue archaeology contracts? Or should I strike out in a new psychology. In time, I came to realize the importance of a cross-
direction and do something I had been pondering for some time? cultural perspective and I gravitated toward anthropology. Over-
seas study in 1969 at Stanford’s campus in Vienna, Austria,
I’d always had an abiding curiosity about the world and the uni- emphasized for me the value of experiencing other cultures and
verse and why things are the way they are. As a boy, I was aware understanding their historical roots.
of my special talents for learning and understanding. Because I
did well in school and was athletically talented, I developed a I graduated with a B.A. in psychology, but I had taken as many
confidence that I could do anything that I chose to do. I felt that credit hours in anthropology as in psychology. In 1970, I entered
I had something special to accomplish in my life. the University of Oregon to pursue graduate studies in anthro-
pology. Soon, archaeology became my direction, largely because
My upbringing cultivated in me a strong sense of compassion— its empirical approach and time-depth perspective impressed
I was always the one who stood up for the kid who was being me as the best way to learn how human cultures originated and
bullied. My education in parochial school and by the Jesuits at developed.
Gonzaga Preparatory School in Spokane, Washington, encour-
aged in me a passion for social justice that probably crystallized I began archaeological fieldwork in 1971, assisting Mel Aikens
during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. I realized early with the Oregon summer field school at a prehistoric site in the
on that Native Americans represented fascinating ancient cul- Willamette Valley. The work there fascinated me and I quickly
tures that were here long before my ancestors crossed the soaked up the field methodology. Dr. Aikens became my disser-
Atlantic and subjugated them. tation adviser and probably had more influence on me through
his example and direct advice than any other archaeologist at
Even though I enjoyed school and had always followed my inter- Oregon.
ests without concern for employment, it took a long time before

time, I became less satisfied and increasingly frustrated about

the limited impact of archaeological work. Archaeology is about
people and what they have done and created over the millennia
that resulted in the world we see today, so we should be sharing
what we are learning with humanity.
I recall many times sitting around after a hard day of excavation,

grousing with workmates about how the public had very little
understanding of what we do and why we do it. I had produced
many dozens of contract reports that gathered dust on client
office shelves and had written numerous papers and mono-
graphs seen by just a few professional colleagues. We all knew
that funding for our work came largely from the public, but we
had no truly effective means to return that value to the public.
And none of us really knew how to change that circumstance,
either.
For a long time, I had felt that media programming was the best
Figure 1. Rick Pettigrew with colleagues at Paisley Caves, Oregon, in 2007, solution to the problem. But developing TV programs or movies
following the shooting of a TAC video interview with Dr. Jenkins. From left involved a big investment and I had no training in that or the
to right: Dr. Dennis Jenkins, Dr. C. Melvin Aikens, Dr. Pettigrew, and Dr. proper connections to get involved in it.
Guy Prouty. Photo by Dr. Guy Prouty
However, I stayed familiar with computers and all that they
By 1972, I was working with Dave Cole and the University of could do. I took more computer programming classes in the
Oregon Museum of Natural History at excavations on the 1970s. I introduced the first archaeological database in Oregon
Columbia River. The prehistory of the lower Columbia was in 1982 and began to use PCs regularly in our work in 1986. In
poorly known then, but I realized that the area, with its very time, I developed familiarity with motion pictures as well—first
large native population and key geographic location, must have in the 1970s with a movie camera to film my kids and then in
played a very important role. After dissertation fieldwork in 1990 with Hi-8 camcorders to record the progress of excava-
1973, I earned my Ph.D. in 1977, establishing the first well-doc-
umented cultural chronology for the lower Columbia River val-
ley.
While completing class work and my dissertation, I worked on

field crews and led projects for the Museum and the Depart-
ment of Anthropology. In the process, I gained valuable experi-
ence in research and fieldwork. In 1976, Dave Cole hired me to
investigate proposed highway project areas for the Museum. I
became, in effect, the “Highway Archaeologist” for the State of
Oregon. For the next ten years, I traveled 10,000 miles each year
surveying hundreds of proposed highway improvements and
conducting scores of excavations.
A big change came in 1986, when Mike Moratto of the Califor-

nia contracting firm INFOTEC Research, Inc., hired me to open
INFOTEC’s Pacific Northwest branch in Eugene. For the next
eight years, we completed a series of fascinating projects,
including the Pipeline Expansion Project, one of the largest ever
done in North America. Figure 2. Dr. Pettigrew shooting video at the Viking trading town of Hedeby
on the Jutland Peninsula of Germany while serving as juror for the CINAR-
After leaving INFOTEC in 1995, I continued on my own to do CHEA Film Festival of Kiel, Germany. Photo taken by Aurelie Gaullet-
archaeology under contract (which I still do occasionally). In Moissenet, May 4, 2006.

tions. That experience encouraged me to dream about sharing mission, is very challenging. We still have a very limited budg-
archaeology’s stories with the public through media. et, so we must find novel ways to conduct our work. I have had
to learn skills and accumulate information I never contemplat-
In the late 1990s, the advent of Web-based streaming media ed in graduate school, such as what constitutes a nonprofit
convinced me that media production and distribution were organization, how to set one up, and how to found and operate
entering a new era. For the first time, one individual on a PC a business (which actually, we are). I have had to learn all about
could produce digital video and audio and deliver it over the digital media and stay current with rapidly advancing technolo-
Internet to a worldwide audience. By 1999, I knew that all media gy at a time when many of my age-mates are retiring. I have
soon would be digital and that Internet distribution eventually vastly expanded my professional archaeological network world-
would become the primary mode for public consumption of wide while building connections with hundreds of filmmakers
media programming. and distributors. At the same time, I must stay current with
archaeological research in order to share new information with
That possibility excited me. As I saw it, we the public.
finally had a practical means to communicate
directly with the public (and with each other) in Each day, upon arriving at our office, I check
a compelling manner. I had found my “some- my email to stay in contact with our large net-
thing special.” work of associates. I assess the priorities of the
tasks in front of us and coordinate with our
So in late 1999, I took the plunge. Gathering employees and volunteers about the work to be
together a few friends and colleagues, I found- done. I spend part of the day directing others
ed Archaeological Legacy Institute (ALI), a non- and part of it working on my own set of tasks.
profit devoted to sharing with the world the I also continually assess our goals and our
human story through media and the Internet. strategic plan and brainstorm ways for us to
We created The Archaeology Channel (TAC), our grow. It’s demanding to think long-term when
streaming-media Web site (www.archaeology- we have so many immediate, short-term dead-
channel.org). We put up our first on-demand lines and needs.
streaming videos in 2000, using technology
that today seems so primitive that I am amazed Fund-raising, an inevitable and essential part
we accomplished what we did! We began of my job, is hugely challenging—probably the
streaming our very popular weekly show, the Figure 3. Dr. Pettigrew on a project to biggest challenge of all. Just like any business,
Audio News from Archaeologica, in 2001. We film the prehistoric temples of Malta; rid- we have to meet payroll at the end of the
introduced our annual film competition, The ing a ferry to the island of Gozo to visit month, so I have to figure out what we can
Archaeology Channel International Film and the prehistoric temple of Ggantija. afford to try and then figure out how to pay for
Video Festival, in 2003. Photo taken by Teal Greyhavens on May it. Another challenge is to decide what media
7, 2011. content to offer and what messages we should
My most rewarding experience as ALI’s head is deliver to our audience. This is difficult
our passage from a startup nonprofit with no because we are never able to satisfy everyone.
resources to one that has survived and grown for a dozen years
into an organization effectively sharing the human story with In effect, we at ALI have been building a bridge to new careers
everyone. Today, TAC streams about 200 video programs and for archaeologists. To the extent that we succeed in multiplying
lots of audio and has become one of the most popular archaeol- ways to distribute archaeology-related media and compensate
ogy-related websites. TAC Festival, now in its ninth edition, has producers, we are developing a new industry.
screened hundreds of films from at least 45 countries. We have
moved into cable TV production with our monthly news- Those considering archaeology their life’s work can now imag-
magazine show, the Video News from TAC, seen on 20 stations ine a career in public outreach through media. If you decide to
across the US and now going international. Our vision is to take this path, you will need to combine a standard archaeolog-
grow into a much larger and more influential media organiza- ical curriculum with course work in media production and jour-
tion distributing programming on cultural heritage and archae- nalism. The same goes for work outside the classroom: you will
ology through a variety of means to hundreds of millions of peo- need to gain some research and field experience in archaeology
ple worldwide. as well as experience in media production and journalism.
Embrace new directions! Learn what the story is and discover
Directing a nonprofit organization, especially one with a unique how to tell it!

ARTICLES
WHO GETS PUBLISHED IN

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY?
Alison E. Rautman
Alison E. Rautman is the Editor of American Antiquity, (2009-2012).
A
t the April 2011 meeting of the SAA Board, some members asked how women authors fared as reviewers
and as authors of manuscripts that were published in American Antiquity. I investigated this issue with the
data available from the new online submission system: Editorial Manager.
Gender Assignment for This Study

This study used a visual study of given (first) names of reviewers and authors for a one-year span from April 2009
to April 2010. Use of first names may cause some errors in gender assignment because some names (e.g., “Chris,
Jordan”) can be gendered male or female. This factor is assumed to be relatively minor, and is likely to work both
ways. I also was able to make some gender assignments simply because I knew the individual.
Reviewer Gender
During this one-year period, I invited 763 reviewers. The reviewers included 485 names commonly used for men
(64 percent) and 278 names commonly used for women (36 percent).
The main factors affecting the invitation to review a manuscript include:
1. The reviewer has published previously on the general issue

2. The reviewer has published within the last 10 years or so
3. The reviewer is a member of SAA, with a valid email address
4. If the reviewer is not a member of SAA, then the email address is readily available when I search the Web.
The last two factors are, in fact, the deciding and limiting factors on reviewer invitations.
While I do deliberately try to include women as reviewers, I have found that if a woman is NOT a member of the
SAA, it is generally more difficult for me to find her email address than it is to find men who are non-SAA mem-
bers. While I don’t know the reason for this issue, I do have some general observations.
1. If an archaeologist works for a university or college, their email is usually easy to find on the departmental web
page. The web pages focus on an individual’s accomplishments.
2. If an archaeologist works for an agency such as a museum, a private contract firms, a federal or state govern-
mental agency, their individual email is usually not posted within the available contact information. The
emphasis is on the group’s accomplishments, and individual contributions may or may not be highlighted.
I suspect that the women are differentially represented in non-academic positions, which makes their individual
email addresses more difficult to obtain.
Note: Alison Rautman is the outgoing editor of American Antiquity (2009–2012); in April 2012 Kenneth Sassaman will become
the journal’s editor.

ARTICLES
Table 1.
Gender of Authors, in order listed Submitted Accepted Rejected

Solo-male 48 26 22
Solo-female 19 10 9
Male-female co-authors 2 0 2
Female-male co-authors 6 3 3
Male-male co-authors 15 8 7
Female-female co-authors 1 0 1
MMF group co-authors 1 1 0
MFF group co-authors 1 1 0
MFM group co-authors 1 0 1
MMM group co-authors 3 2 1
FMF group co-authors 2 1 1
MM? (Not uniquely gendered name) 1 1 0
*Male-led group >3 3 2 1
*Female-led group >3 3 2 1
SUM 106 57 49
*Articles with more than three authors are very rare. They are usually Comments or (in one case) a manuscript that synthesized
multiple technical specialties.
Author Gender and Manuscript Submission, Acceptance, and Rejection

Table 1 lists the authors’ inferred gender, with multiple authors in the order in which they appear in the manu-
script. These data do not include articles that were still “in process” or “in revision.” These data also do not include
those manuscripts that are classified as “withdrawn.”
As you can see from the raw data, male solo authors submit more than twice as many manuscripts as female solo
authors, and represent also twice the number of acceptances and also twice the number of rejections. Among multi-
authored manuscripts, male-male authored manuscripts are the most common combination of authors by far.
However, even these manuscripts are fairly evenly split between acceptances and rejections. This brief study of the
inferred gender representation among authors who submit manuscripts to American Antiquity shows that:
1. Men submit more articles than women do.

2. Men get more articles published than women do.
3. There does not seem to be any obvious factor affecting the outcomes (accept or reject) of manuscripts written
by men or by women, or various combinations thereof. That is, a manuscript’s fate in the peer-review system
does not appear to be sensitive to the (inferred) gender of the author(s).
4. The first step to getting an article published is to submit the manuscript. If an author does not submit a man-
uscript, there is zero chance of getting it published!
Suggestions for Future Research

It is possible that men simply outnumber women in academic positions where writing articles for American Antiq-
uity is a higher priority. This study does not address whether the male/female representation of authors is propor-
tionate to the demographics of academic employment. There is some suggestion that women are more likely to be
employed in CRM, Museum, and governmental agency settings.
Suggestions for Future Actions

If we as a discipline wish to increase the participation of women in writing and reviewing manuscripts, there are
some specific actions that we might take:
>RAUTMAN, continued on page 30

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
“THE PRINCIPLES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

ETHICS AS A LIVING DOCUMENT:
IS REVISION NECESSARY?”
A REQUEST FROM THE SAA COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
Joe Watkins
Joe Watkins is the Chair of the SAA Committee on Ethics.
The Conversation at the Committee on Ethics
I
n the years since the SAA created and last added to its Prin-
ciples of Archaeological Ethics, archaeology has faced new Forum in Sacramento
challenges, particularly as more people outside the profes- To help meet the Board’s charge, the Committee on Ethics con-
sion have taken interest in using the archaeological record in ducted a sponsored forum at the Sacramento meetings titled
ways that conflict with our traditional notions of proper “stew- “The Principles of Archaeological Ethics as a Living Document:
ardship” of that record. Given our years of experience in using Is Revision Necessary?” It also published a notice of the sympo-
the Principles to guide our profession, most Committee on sium, soliciting participation, in the March 2011 edition of The
Ethics members believe it now is appropriate to revisit them. SAA Archaeological Record (page 44).
In that light, during its November 2010 meeting, the Board of
Directors passed Motion 126-28B, charging the Committee on A diverse group of practicing archaeologists comprised of CRM
Ethics “to review the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics archaeologists, government archaeologists, academic archaeolo-
and recommend whether there are areas that may be in need gists, and International and Indigenous archaeologists attended
of revision and further discussion.” Appropriately, the Com- the symposium. Most were supportive of revisiting the Princi-
mittee on Ethics will be conducting a survey of the SAA mem- ples of Archaeological Ethics, especially as they relate to the idea
bership concerning the Principles this summer. of stewardship and the rights of the archaeologist to assume the
primary role of “steward” to the apparent exclusion of others
These actions are being undertaken partially in response to an whose interests also lie within the archaeological record. Pan-
open letter published by attendees of an October 2008 confer- elists also discussed the differing meanings that heritage has to
ence. Twelve archaeologists of diverse backgrounds, interests, different groups of people, and the implications such defini-
and ages met at Indiana University, Bloomington, to discuss the tions may have to those groups.
Principles of Archaeological Ethics and their implications for
archaeological practice in today’s society. Proceeding from the While most committee members believe the Principles should
position that collaborative practice is essential for quality be revised, most also acknowledge they cannot gauge how the
archaeology, the group reviewed the Principles for possible revi- SAA membership feels about revision at this time. Therefore,
sion and expansion. They also began developing ideas to the Committee will be conducting a survey of the SAA mem-
improve interactions between archaeologists and affected bership concerning the Principles this summer.
groups, particularly Native American and Indigenous commu-
nities. The group solicited comments from archaeologists via an Concerns expressed by committee members and participants at
open letter published in the March 2009 edition of The SAA the symposium fall into two categories: substantive changes in
Archaeological Record (page 4), on-line at http://www.archaeolo- the structure or focus of the Principles and practical changes to
gy-ce.info/letter.html, as well as through a Facebook page facilitate their use. The categories that follow only summarize
(https://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=140544690015). issues expressed at the Symposium and by the Committee
members, and are not meant to limit the breadth of potential
changes or constrain discussion.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
The following points related to general substantive change were ical Association have made note of the way anthropology now
noted: fits in the world and have acted to amend or change their ethi-
cal statements. This is a question the SAA should now ponder:
1. There should be recognition of the special responsibilities how does the practice of archaeology fit in the early twenty-first
archaeologists have toward indigenous peoples, especially century and how should it properly interact with the diverse
lineal descendents of the people whose lifeways are the sub- populations it affects? This is one of the reasons we now see the
ject of our researches, which perhaps conflicts with priori- “weaknesses” of the SAA principles.
tizing “Stewardship” above “Accountability” in the Princi-
ples. Finally, the original authors of the Principles noted the likeli-
hood of the need to revisit and revise them on a regular basis,
2. The notion of Stewardship is flawed, especially if archaeolo-
especially when they are deemed ineffective in aiding archaeol-
gists are seen to be self-appointed stewards of the archaeo-
ogists to address ethical dilemmas.
logical record. Perhaps a concept of “trusteeship” may be
clearer (although the conflict of interest problem still might
not be resolved). Next Steps in Revisiting (and Revising?) the SAA Principles
3. The Principles should provide better guidance and be more With this in mind, the SAA Committee on Ethics is hoping to
applicable to those archaeologists who practice outside of initiate a year-long program to revisit and, if necessary, revise
academic or research-oriented environments. the Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Such a program will be
initiated through on-line conversations; discussion within the
4. There is a focus on issues that arise in the Americas, main-
SAA’s The SAA Archaeological Record of the issues and the
ly North America. The SAA has international members and
process; and publication of the results. The Committee has pro-
members who work overseas and who find little guidance
posed to develop a survey instrument to gauge the member-
for concerns that arise in their practice.
ship’s perceptions and thoughts; if approved by the Board and
5. The practitioners who have used the Principles since their the SAA’s Survey Oversight Committee, we hope to gather
construction have a sense of their weaknesses. In short, information this summer.
now would be a good time to revisit them.
Listed below are the current Principles of Archaeological Ethics
The Symposium participants and Committee members also
with some comments as examples of where discussion might
were concerned about the practical integration of the Principles
proceed. We welcome member comments and discussion, not-
into daily archaeological practice. Ethical principles can never
ing that such discussion is an essential part of the process of
provide simple answers to every issue, but a worthwhile goal is
ethical responsibility and growth within ethical guidelines:
to make their application and interpretation easier. Two
approaches were suggested by the Committee on Ethics and
forum attendees to make the Principles easier to apply and Principle No. 1: Stewardship
more integrated into the practice:
The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material
and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplace-
1. A new format or approach is needed that provides clearer
able. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-
guidance so that the Principles are easier to apply.
term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by
2. More guidance is needed to implement the Principles practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record.
(whether or not they are revised), to overcome their ambi- Stewards are both caretakers of and advocates for the archaeological
guities. While the SAA Principles have a great deal of pub- record for the benefit of all people; as they investigate and interpret
lished commentary, they would benefit from additional the record, they should use the specialized knowledge they gain to
resources for assisting the practitioner to work through an promote public understanding and support for its long-term preser-
issue. This guidance could come in the form of case studies, vation.
hypothetical cases, commentary, “things to consider,”
and/or discussion, perhaps somewhat along the lines with- Can the “archaeological record” be considered independently
in the AAA column Ethical Currents. from its cultural context? While many archaeologists consider
the loss of knowledge to be an ultimate issue in the loss of the
The discipline and the world have changed since the time that
archaeological record, others perceive the loss of the material
the current Principles were drafted. The implementation of the
remains of the past to be part of the “natural way of life.” Can
Principles in archaeological practice over the last 15 years has
this conflict between those who make their living on the archae-
revealed areas that could use clarification, expansion, or modifi-
ological past and those whose ancestors created that past be
cation. Other organizations such as the American Anthropolog-

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
resolved? Does proper stewardship foreclose multiple uses of icans and other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups who find in the
the archaeological record? archaeological record important aspects of their cultural heritage;
lawmakers and government officials; reporters, journalists, and oth-
ers involved in the media; and the general public. Archaeologists who
Principle No. 2: Accountability are unable to undertake public education and outreach directly
Responsible archaeological research, including all levels of profes- should encourage and support the efforts of others in these activities.
sional activity, requires an acknowledgment of public accountability
and a commitment to make every reasonable effort, in good faith, to Some archaeologists note that many community archaeological
consult actively with affected group(s), with the goal of establishing a projects are of a different level of “academic rigor” than others,
working relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved. and, as a result, can perhaps be seen as somehow “lesser” than
purely academic ones. How can we ensure that public education
Should the “working relationship” be beneficial to all parties and outreach truly is beneficial to the many publics that are out
involved, or should any one party have a higher claim on that there? How many “lobbying” efforts can we undertake to make
material than others? public education a reality rather than an afterthought?
Principle No. 3: Commercialization Principle No. 5: Intellectual Property

The Society for American Archaeology has long recognized that the Intellectual property, as contained in the knowledge and documents
buying and selling of objects out of archaeological context is con- created through the study of archaeological resources, is part of the
tributing to the destruction of the archaeological record on the Amer- archaeological record. As such it should be treated in accord with the
ican continents and around the world. The commercialization of principles of stewardship rather than as a matter of personal posses-
archaeological objects —their use as commodities to be exploited for sion. If there is a compelling reason, and no legal restrictions or
personal enjoyment or profit—results in the destruction of archaeo- strong countervailing interests, a researcher may have primary access
logical sites and of contextual information that is essential to under- to original materials and documents for a limited and reasonable
standing the archaeological record. Archaeologists should therefore time, after which these materials and documents must be made
carefully weigh the benefits to scholarship of a project against the available to others.
costs of potentially enhancing the commercial value of archaeological
objects. Whenever possible they should discourage, and should them- As many people are beginning to notice and write about, not all
selves avoid, activities that enhance the commercial value of archae- people believe that “intellectual property” is equally identified
ological objects, especially objects that are not curated in public insti- and defined by all groups. The Western concept of intellectual
tutions, or readily available for scientific study, public interpretation, property—and property in general—might sometimes be in
and display. conflict with that of Indigenous groups and others; who should
have the right to control that intellectual property right if a con-
More recently, some archaeologists have indicated they are less flict exists?
concerned about the exploitation of archaeological material for
commercial uses as for its exploitation for nationalist ones:
should the SAA consider and address the political uses to which Principle No. 6: Public Reporting and Publication
archaeology has been and continues to be put? Is this political Within a reasonable time, the knowledge archaeologists gain from
exploitation better, lesser, or even different than the commercial investigation of the archaeological record must be presented in acces-
exploitation? sible form (through publication or other means) to as wide a range
of interested publics as possible. The documents and materials on
which publication and other forms of public reporting are based
Principle No. 4: Public Education and Outreach should be deposited in a suitable place for permanent safekeeping. An
Archaeologists should reach out to, and participate in cooperative interest in preserving and protecting in situ archaeological sites must
efforts with others interested in the archaeological record with the be taken in to account when publishing and distributing information
aim of improving the preservation, protection, and interpretation of about their nature and location.
the record. In particular, archaeologists should undertake to: 1) enlist
public support for the stewardship of the archaeological record; 2) While this Principle discusses “distributing information,” it was
explain and promote the use of archaeological methods and tech- written at a time when environments such as the “cloud,” elec-
niques in understanding human behavior and culture; and 3) com- tronic documents, and other such applications were neither
municate archaeological interpretations of the past. Many publics commonplace nor relevant. While it might not be necessary to
exist for archaeology including students and teachers; Native Amer- revise this Principle, perhaps clarification and further elabora-

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
tion on items would be welcome. ence, facilities, and other support necessary to conduct any program
of research they initiate in a manner consistent with the foregoing
principles and contemporary standards of professional practice.
Principle No. 7: Records and Preservation
Archaeologists should work actively for the preservation of, and long Is there a need to further identify particular wording that calls
term access to, archaeological collections, records, and reports. To this for expanding relationships with the various publics we identi-
end, they should encourage colleagues, students, and others to make fy, the relationships with these principles, the principle of
responsible use of collections, records, and reports in their research as preservation, and so forth?
one means of preserving the in situ archaeological record, and of
increasing the care and attention given to that portion of the archae-
ological record, which has been removed and incorporated into Please Participate!
archaeological collections, records, and reports. None of these points of discussion are meant to be limiting or
to in any way guide the discussion. We specifically invite com-
The availability of information on archaeological collections and ments from our students who have grown up in this age of the
records is important for the academic progress of archaeology, Ethics Bowls. One of our goals is to hear other about issues
and yet the availability of such information might also have neg- members have with the Principles and with strengthening our
ative consequences for particular groups within areas. As such, discipline’s Principles of Ethical Responsibility. PLEASE partic-
perhaps there is a need to identify unintended consequences of ipate and help us make sure these Principles are ones the disci-
which we should be aware in relation to such preservation. pline can live by and flourish with. We welcome your email
comments to us at [email protected].
Principle No. 8: Training and Resources

Given the destructive nature of most archaeological investigations,
archaeologists must ensure that they have adequate training, experi-
RAUTMAN, from page 26 <
1. Encourage non-academics to join the SAA. My informal experience is that archaeologists who work in govern-
mental agencies, private firms, museums, and other non-university settings are less likely to join the SAA, and
their contact information is simply more difficult to find, even among the listings of the Register of Profes-
sional Archaeologists (RPA). Simply asking non-members to review manuscripts seems to spur people to at
least think about joining the SAA.
2. Encourage manuscript submission. This encouragement might simply involve restructuring criteria (e.g., for
departmental promotion and tenure) to reward manuscript submission (in a manner similar to the way that
some universities track “grant submission” as an indicator of “effort” regardless of whether one receives the
grant).
Authors have told me repeatedly that it is quite difficult to persuade colleagues to comment on manuscripts with-
out going through the formal submission process. Many young scholars have mentioned that the formal review is
the only mechanism available to get assistance or feedback. While individual scholars can access or develop self-
help writing groups, perhaps there are ways in which the SAA could facilitate some process of informal pre-sub-
mission review. For example, the SAA might help create an informal mentoring network that would allow inter-
ested academics to self-identify as potential pre-submission reviewers for certain topics.
Another idea is that the SAA, or the Publications Committee, or some other group, could arrange space/time at the
SAA meetings for senior scholar volunteers to provide half-hour one-on-one manuscript evaluation—the manu-
script’s equivalent of speed-dating, if you will. Neither of these mechanisms could possibly guarantee manuscript
acceptance, but would provide junior scholars with at least some feedback on organizational structure and
composition—and some practical advice and perhaps even encouragement—in an informal setting before they
submit the manuscript for official review.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN BIOARCHAEOLOGY

Debra L. Martin and Ryan P Harrod
Debra L. Martin is a Professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Ryan P. Harrod is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
B
ioarchaeology is the study of ancient and historic cultural perspective on humans as both biological and cul-
human remains in a richly configured context that tural beings.
includes all possible reconstructions of the cultural
and environmental variables bearing upon interpretations As a subdiscipline, bioarchaeology is emerging as a special-
drawn from those remains. Research focused on the study of ty that holds a unique place within anthropology, with one
human remains must consider how this type of analysis foot in biological anthropology and one foot in archaeology
affects the people who view the remains as ancestors. The privileging each equally. However, bioarchaeology aims to be
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act much more than a sum of osteological data plus archaeolog-
(NAGPRA) in the U.S., and similar kinds of injunctions, leg- ical context. As such, bioarchaeology is rooted in anthropo-
islation, and mandates in other countries have forever logical theory, and it has the potential as few other disci-
changed the way that burials and human remains are plines do to reveal important dimensions to the human life
approached. From the moment of discovery through to history that are currently unfathomable. The methodological
analysis and interpretation, NAGPRA and NAGPRA-like foundation of bioarchaeology was outlined in a volume by
mandates have brought bioarchaeologists and indigenous or Clark Larsen (1997), and the intellectual history of bioar-
descendant populations together in often surprising and pro- chaeology was formalized in an edited volume by Jane Buik-
ductive ways that could not have been predicted. stra and Lane Beck (2006).
Today, virtually no analysis is done on any human remains The mandate for interdisciplinary approaches has grown
without consensus and some form of cooperative effort exponentially. Knudson and Stojanowski (2008) presented a
between bioarchaeologists and other stakeholders. From state-of-the-art overview of the ways that bioarchaeology pro-
museum and governmental entities, to tribal representatives vides “social identities” to human remains. They called for
and indigenous committees, research proposals, excavation bioarchaeology to push the limits of what can be known
permits, and access to repositories are strictly controlled. about the lived experience of individuals and communities
The product of this more collaborative effort is not only a represented by bony remains in the archaeological record.
much deeper engagement with descendant communities in There is an increasing need for bioarchaeologists to have
many cases but also a more detailed understanding of the training in a number of areas including skeletal biology,
human remains themselves. paleopathology, forensic anthropology, excavation technique,
taphonomy and site formation processes, state and federal
As a field of study, bioarchaeology is informed by a wide burial laws, and advanced analytical techniques such as iso-
range of scientific methods and theories coming from disci- topic and DNA analysis and histology. Theory drawn from a
plines such as archaeology, medicine, forensics, anatomy, number of sources and biocultural modeling has provided
epidemiology, and demography. Yet, it is fully practiced with- the means for integrating data across these boundaries in
in the discipline of anthropology (Armelagos 2003). Bioar- innovative ways.
chaeology is the scientific study of humans using the archae-
ological record to enhance what can be known about the Our objective is to demonstrate the value of new directions
past, and this information is used to make verifiable explain bioarchaeology to archaeological research and to better
nations about human behavior. At its very best, bioarchaeol- understanding the past. Both offer different strengths and
ogy helps explain human behavior and why certain patterns both are challenged in different ways due to the limits of the
emerge in some cultures at particular times. Primarily,
bioarchaeology uniquely provides time depth and a cross-
>MARTIN & HARROD, continued on page 44

ETHNOBIOARCHAEOLOGY
Ryan P. Harrod
Ryan P. Harrod is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
F
or most of the history of scientific research involving what he later coined “ethno-bioarchaeology” (Walker et al.
the study of human skeletal remains, researchers have 1998:389).
identified themselves as osteologists. Look up the word
osteology and you will find that it means the study of bones. It has been over two decades since Walker and Hewlett first
Not satisfied with simply measuring and describing bones, pioneered this method and a decade since Walker, Sugiyama,
several researchers during the last half of the 1970s started a and Chacon emphatically noted that there was “an urgent
revolution. These pioneers included Jane Buikstra, George need for more ethnobioarchaeological research” (1998:389). Yet
Armelagos, and Clark Spencer Larsen. What they did was bioarchaeologists have been slow to advance this approach.
push researchers to move beyond the “study of bones” There have been a few studies that utilize ethnohistoric or
toward research that fleshed out the identity of the living per- clinical documentation as a proxy for ethnographic informa-
son and how they fit into the larger cultural context. The tion. These, however, lack the specificity and cultural nuance
result was the birth of the field of bioarchaeology. that ethnographic studies designed collaboratively with
bioarchaeologists could bring to the field.
Nearly twenty years after the development of bioarchaeolo-
gy, another leading bioarchaeologist, Philip Walker, chal- Ethnobioarchaeology is one of the next frontiers for a new
lenged researchers analyzing skeletal remains to go even generation of bioarchaeologists. As such, it is timely to illus-
further. He argued that bioarchaeologists must incorporate trate the wealth of information that can be produced utiliz-
ethnography in the same way that ethnoarchaeologists have ing this approach. To do this I present an overview of the sec-
since the mid-1950s (Kleindienst and Watson 1956). Eth- ond research project by Walker and his team and a current
noarchaeology is an approach to understanding material project that I have been working on with a cognitive anthro-
culture and behavior in the past using ethnographic analo- pologist and a bioarchaeologist. These examples will hope-
gy. This is the practice of utilizing ethnographic observa- fully stimulate and generate new areas of collaborative
tions in order to make inferences about the behavior of peo- research for bioarchaeologists.
ple in past cultures.
Walker conducted two projects utilizing this approach, both Ethnobioarchaeology of Dental Health
looking at dental health. The first analyzed dental health as (Walker et al. 1998)
it relates to status, while the second looked at the activities Walker and his team had a great idea. They wanted to see if
and behaviors that affect dental health. The first project they could use data from three groups living in different
involved a collaborative effort between Walker and a cultural regions of Amazonian Basin, the Yanomamö, Yora, and Shi-
anthropologist, Barry Hewlett (1990). This project looked at wiar, to understand more completely the relationship
dental health among foraging and agricultural groups in between changes in oral health and dentition and shifts in
Central Africa. The second project, a collaborative effort diet and nutrition. What is unique about this research is that
between Walker, a cognitive anthropologist, Lawrence the focus was on variations in dental health where there was
Sugiyama, and a cultural anthropologist, Richard Chacon greater control over confounding variables that bioarchaeol-
(1998) explored dental health among horticultural groups in ogists usually have no control over. Changes to dentition are
the Amazonian Basin. Walker’s pioneering work created a an important area of research because they are typically per-
marriage of bioarchaeology with ethnography producing ceived to be strong indicators of diet in bioarchaeological

studies. This relationship makes them are numerous, often confounding, vari-
especially important for ascertaining the ables that need to be taken into consider-
type and quality of food resources avail- ation when analyzing dental health.
able to each individual. Most of the These factors included the person’s sex
research conducted on dental changes and age, the society’s means of food pro-
over time related to shifting subsistence duction, and the culture’s behavioral
patterns involves the analysis of ancient practices.
skeletal populations. As such, a great deal
of inference and speculation about the fac-
tors underlying these changes was always Ethnobioarchaeology of Trauma
present. (Harrod et al. in press, 2012)
Nearly two decades after Walker’s ethno-
The approach to this study involved bioarchaeological research, My colleagues
recording dental health on each individ- and I began thinking about the origins and
ual, as well as ethnographically recording evolution of nonlethal violence, and the
the subsistence strategy and diet from implications for distinguishing violent
each ethnic group or community. The Figure 1. Richard Chacon in the Yanomamö trauma from accidental trauma on ancient
dental changes examined included the village of Mokaritateri (Photo by Lawrence skeletons. Together with Debra Martin (a
presence of caries, wear to the surface of Sugiyama). bioarchaeologist) and Pierre Liénard (a
the tooth, the loss of teeth during one’s cognitive anthropologist), we designed an
lifetime known as antemortem tooth loss, ethnobioarchaeological study to carry out
and finally the presence and severity of enamel and hypopla- with the Turkana. The Turkana offered a good model for
sia. The subsistence strategy for each group was recorded studying nonlethal trauma and injury related to lifestyle, mar-
according to three characteristics: (1) How they produced riage practices, and violence.
their food (e.g., hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agri-
culture); (2) How the food was prepared (e.g., crushing and The methodology involved using a questionnaire and a body
sucking sugar cane); (3) What food was actually consumed diagram that would provide direct information from individu-
(i.e., protein versus carbohydrates). als about their various healed scars, wounds, and injuries. The
questionnaire consisted of over sixty questions about repro-
The findings revealed that there are variations in the percent- ductive history, general health, stress levels, nutrition and diet,
age and mean frequencies of caries and antemortem tooth occupational stress, and trauma. The body maps were crucial
loss among the groups, but changes in dental wear patterns because they provided an illustration of the body that offered
presented a surprising finding. Instead of showing signifi- an easy way for individuals to identify all of the places on their
cant change among the groups, this measure illustrated the body where they had sustained injuries. The idea was to have
importance of analyzing the regional differences in the sub- the Turkana map of each healed injury on the body, as well as
sistence strategy at the micro -level, which describe when and how it was obtained.
includes factors like sex-based behavior Our questions included identifying if there
and age-related changes. This would also were certain people in the population at
include how food is produced or its avail- greater risk of injury, if there seems to be a
ability (more or less meat as related to pattern of repeat injury among people who
wear), the way it is prepared (manioc had sustained past trauma, and if it was
chewing for beer and prevention of cavi- possible to identify the mechanism or
ties), what resources are consumed (tobac- activity behind particular injuries. The lat-
co use and increase wear), and the cultur- ter was especially important as it is often
al practices related to subsistence (using argued that injuries to the head and body
teeth as tools and anterior tooth wear). that are identified as evidence of violence
could just as likely be a consequence of
The overall findings of this research are accidental or occupational activities. So we
that simple correlations between subsis- wanted to see whether or not there was a
tence strategy and dental health are not Figure 2. Pierre Liénard fieldwork amongst way to differentiate injuries that resulted
valid. The researchers discovered there the Turkana (Photo by Dolores Bossuyt). from accidents such as working with the

herds, from those related to interpersonal accidental or fall-related head trauma is

violence (e.g., male competition for status) analyzed using Western post-industrial
and intergroup conflict (e.g., raiding neigh- populations who do have higher rates of
boring herders for cattle). falls due to environmental hazards pro-
duced by the artificial landscape (e.g., low
The findings of this research indicated that friction surfaces like linoleum or high-
both males and females were exposed to a level falls due to multistoried architec-
fair amount of trauma related to accidents ture). With an ethnobioarchaeological
or occupational activities, such as being approach, it would be possible to deter-
gored by the horn of a cow, kicked by a mine how common these types of
donkey, bitten by a camel, or simply falling injuries are in a natural environment.
down. However, what we learned about
these kinds of injuries is that they were Ethnobioarchaeology is a critical new
typically superficial and only affected the Figure 3. Ryan Harrod analyzing the methodological approach for bioarchaeolo-
soft tissue. In contrast, violence-related Turkana data (Photo by Stephanie Harrod). gy because through the interaction with liv-
injuries were more severe and often did ing people we can better understand the
affect the bone. Turkana informants could circumstances that result in changes to the
point to areas on their body where they had sustained injuries skeleton. It goes beyond simply looking at historic or medical
related to fighting or raids, which were the more serious types records that capture a snapshot of people’s lives. We owe Philip
of injury. Some of these old, well-healed wounds could still be Walker gratitude for being so prescience about the future
felt through the skin on the bone. Another interesting result potential of Ethnobioarchaeology. In writing the obituary for
that emerged from this research was that there were differ- him, Clark Larsen and Patricia Lambert (2010) highlighted the
ences between male and female injury patterns that correlat- potential of his work in this area.
ed with their different roles. For example, questionnaire data
revealed that in the polygyous marriages that are typical The use of ethnobioarchaeological approaches are crucial to
among the Turkana, it is not always males hitting females, consider because they offer a novel method for bioarchaeol-
but that occasionally women use violence against one anoth- ogists to reverse-engineer individual and cultural behavior
er. The project provided detailed descriptions of why people in the past. When we are asking questions about the lives of
engage in violent action or fall victim to violence. While some people in the past, we are often at a disadvantage of not
of these data are specific to the Turkana, we were also able to knowing what all of the most important biocultural rela-
take much of the insight afforded by this study and apply it to tionships might be. With more ethnobioarchaeological stud-
our ongoing studies of violence in past populations. ies, we can begin to clarify important factors that underlie
the patterns in health and healthcare, use of the body,
changes in dentition, and other ways that give us clues
Ethnobioarchaeology and the Future about ancient identity.
In addition to the projects discussed above, ethnobioarchae-
ology can offer better answers to a number of research ques-
tions. Here are some ideas I am interested in pursuing or References Cited
seeing done by others. First, we can clarify the role age plays Kleindienst, Maxine R, and Patty Jo Watson
in the degree of musculoskeletal muscle attachment or 1956 “Action Archaeology”: The Archaeological Inventory of a
enthesis development. Collaboration with a cultural anthro- Living Community. Anthropology Tomorrow 5(75–78).
pologist working with an indigenous group that practices Larsen, Clark Spencer, and Patricia M. Lambert
very specific and habitual tasks on a daily basis could help 2010 Obituary: Philip Lee Walker, 22 July 1947–6 February
identify the variables involved in these muscle attachments. 2009. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141(1):1–2.
This would involve using portable ultrasound or x-ray to cap- Walker, Philip L., L. S. Sugiyama, and Richard J. Chacon
ture bone growth over time at the site of the muscle attach- 1998 Diet, Dental Health, and Cultural Change mong Recently
Contacted South American Indian Hunter-Horticulturists.
ments of interest. A second project I would like to see per-
In Human Dental Development, Morphology, and Pathology:
formed would be to explore the rate of accidental head trau-
A tribute to Albert A Dahlberg, edited by J.R. Lukacs, pp.
ma among a foraging population. Because there is a tenden-
355–386. Anthropological Papers, No. 54. University of
cy to assume that violence is not very common in hunter-
Oregon, Eugene.
gatherers populations, trauma to the head has largely been
thought to be related to falls and other lifestyle hazards. And,

KIDS THROUGH ADULT EYES

THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF CHILDREN
Marc F. Oxenham
Marc F. Oxenham is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University
N
early 4,000 years ago tragedy struck a small com- noceros, crocodile, and various species of deer and monkey.
munity of less than 100 souls. A child, who we can Within a hundred yards of the houses a large river started to
name Sammy, had died at an age, some 8 to 9 years broaden as it developed into an expansive estuary rich in bird
old, at which children are generally at their peak of health and aquatic life. This watercourse was one of many that con-
and vitality. We don’t know Sammy’s gender as children do tributed to one of the largest deltas in Southeast Asia: the
not develop skeletal signatures of biological sex until adoles- Red River system. The inhabitants of Man Bac formed the
cence, but we’ll refer to Sammy as female. Sammy’s health, vanguard of a major transformational process that was to
good or ill, in addition to her treatment in death can provide sweep through Southeast Asia, changing its inhabitants and
insights into what it was like to be a child thousands of years the region as a whole for millennia to come.
ago. Bioarchaeology provides a set of powerful conceptual,
methodological, and inferential tools for reconstructing A few generations prior to Sammy’s birth, villagers engaged
aspects of both the biology and social identity of children in hunting wild animals, fishing in the river, estuary, and
who died well before their time in the ancient past. even open sea as well as gathering a wide range of wild plant
foods. This was to suddenly change with the appearance of
Using examples from prehistoric Vietnam, I will paint a pic- newcomers from the north, with exotic physical features,
ture of what it was like to live as a child in small tropical com- bringing a new way of living: domesticated crops and ani-
munities before the arrival of metal technologies. This peri- mals. Rather than conflict, the archaeological evidence sug-
od, the Neolithic, is characterized in Southeast Asia by a gests the two groups shared their different life-ways and
move from hunting land and water animals in addition to even genes. However, the transformations occurring at Man
gathering wild plants, nuts, and seeds to incorporating Bac were not all positive, with a dramatic increase in female
domesticated crops (e.g., rice farming) and animals (e.g., pig fertility and a decline in human health being two of the clear-
rearing) into the general subsistence economy. It is a period est side effects.
devoid of metals such as bronze and iron, where stone adzes,
sickles, and knives were used in their stead. We also see the How do we know that female fertility markedly increased in
introduction of pottery vessels, which facilitated the storage Sammy’s community? While it may seem somewhat para-
of food stuffs and enabled more efficient cooking methods. doxical, the large number of dead and buried children at
Sammy’s story is based on extensive archaeological excava- Man Bac, half of the entire cemetery population, is a signal
tions and intensive laboratory analysis, often involving of fertility. Hunter-gatherer peoples tend to have long inter-
experts from a wide range of specializations (ancient DNA, vals between births and relatively low levels of infant mortal-
ceramic and lithic analysis, osteology, palaeopathology, ity. Farmers tend to have reduced birthing intervals and
zooarchaeology, palynology, etc.) (see Oxenham et al. 2011). increased rates of infant mortality, leading to an increase in
the percentage of children in their cemeteries (see Bocquet-
Sammy’s village, named Man Bac, is less than a two-hour Appel 2011).
drive south of modern day Hanoi. It consisted of a cluster of
closely set stilted wooden and bamboo dwellings with Neonates, or babies that died shortly before or soon after
thatched roofs, was back-dropped by a steeply rising and par- birth, accounted for over 20 percent of the entire cemetery.
tially encircling limestone ridge rising several hundred feet While this figure sharply declined as babies became infants,
above the low thickly forested plains, home to elephant, rhi- there was another mortality peak at 1½ years of age. The

large number of neonate deaths is expected in preindustrial a range of local infectious agents. The introduction of solid
societies; the main cause of death due to endogenous factors, foods and decreased reliance on breast milk marks a baby’s
e.g., low birth weight or birthing trauma. The increase in first major transitional period: weaning. The process of
deaths at 1½ years, on the other hand, was due to exogenous weaning, which can take months if not years, can be fraught
factors, e.g., infectious disease and accidental death (Hal- with danger: not the least being reduction or loss of the
crow and Tayles 2011:340). Sometimes both a baby and its mother’s anti-bodies and the introduction of hitherto
mother would have died at or around the time of birth, but unknown pathogens by way of solid foods. The sharp spike
evidence for such an unfortunately familiar occurrence is in Man Bac infant mortality at around 1½ years of age could
rare archaeologically. We only have one such example in be a signature of this major infant life stage: weaning.
Vietnam: in a contemporaneous community in the far south,
close to modern-day Saigon, a young woman only 15 years Major transitional periods in life, liminal phases, mark entry
old, a child herself, died with the tiny skeletal remains of her into social groups predicated on a range of biological, psy-
unborn baby preserved within her lower abdominal region. chological and socially mediated signifiers. An individual’s
The tragedy is compounded when considering this young identity as a child versus an adult, perhaps a fundamental
women-girl was not very healthy before she died, with evi- bio-social dichotomy, differs by culture and through time. In
dence for congenital pelvic anomalies and appalling oral past, and indeed modern, communities multiple bio-social
health (see Willis and Oxenham 2012). categories occurred that could also vary by gender and other
aspects of identity (e.g. status). Identifying such bio-social
Is it possible to be more specific regarding the causes of so groups from cemetery remains can be problematic and
many children dieing at Man Bac? For the most part the requires an assessment of both the biological age (which
answer is no, however, we can examine aspects of the health tends to approximate chronological age) of the human skele-
of these children before they died, which may throw some tal remains and the manner in which individuals were
light on the underlying reasons for their untimely deaths. In buried: e.g., investment in burial (e.g., grave goods or fur-
some cases chronic illnesses can leave a skeletal signature or nishings, type of coffining, etc.), body orientation, location,
echo of the soft tissue changes associated with certain dis- position, and so forth.
eases. When bone is involved in the body’s response to dis-
ease it will react by way of a net addition or loss of skeletal In examining evidence for bio-social age classes at Man Bac
material, or a combination of both involving remodelling of we have found that children are not automatically buried
the bony tissues. We know that at least one child, whom we with grave offerings until they are at least 7 years of age.
called Nguyen, suffered from a seriously disabling disease as Prior to this age milestone, children have a steadily decreas-
a young child, leaving him with complete lower limb and ing probability of receiving funerary offerings: neonates only
partial upper limb paralysis. Despite the severity of Nguyen’s had a 50 percent likelihood. Nephrite, or jade, is found in a
condition, he survived into early adulthood; in part facilitat- number of burials, but the earliest it appears in children’s
ed by dedicated and devoted care (see Lorn Tilley’s next graves is at 1½ years, perhaps coincidental with the inferred
issue). A very high proportion of Man Bac children suffered period of weaning: or a further signifier of this important
from debilitating underlying chronic infectious disease that bio-social age class. Another important bio-social stage
likely contributed to their eventual deaths. Moreover, the seems to begin around 3 to 5 years, when tools first accom-
increased level of fertility had a deleterious affect on the pany deceased children. From a motor and cognitive devel-
health of these children’s mothers. opment perspective this makes sense, as children will have
the mental and body coordination skills to facilitate the use
In the past, as now, women tended to have poorer dental of tools. Children as young as 5 years old wielding machetes,
health than men, in part due to contrasting female and male leading water buffalo, searching for shellfish, and engaging
biology and physiology. Differences in the composition and in any number of economically significant tasks are as com-
flow rate of saliva, hormonal fluctuations (e.g. female men- mon a sight in Southeast Asia today as thousands of years
strual cycling) and major changes associated with pregnancy ago.
are contributing factors (see Lukacs 2008). It’s not hard to
imagine that a marked increased in the number of births per A further bio-social age class, defined by a high percentage
mother will also be associated with poorer female oral health of young individuals holding long bivalve shells in their
in a community with elevated levels of fertility: frequent hands, spans a range of other classes from birth to late teens.
births equates with poorer health. The significance of the shells is difficult to determine, but
symbols of fertility (e.g., shells) are often associated with the
After birth, mother-infant bonding is furthered through dead, perhaps as a reflection of the opposing states of birth
breast feeding, which also provides the new born with vital (life) and death. This brings us full circle back to Sammy,
nutrients and a measure of its mother’s built up immunity to nicknamed the “shell-child” when discovered, who was

unusual in being one of only two children to die aged 8–9

years old, and the only individual to be laid to rest upon a bed
of shells. Sammy’s lifeless fingers grasped long knife-like
shells, while a necklace of small cowry shells encircled her
neck. Additional grave offerings included a globular ceramic
pot and footed bowl that may have contained victuals to
assuage any thirst and hunger she might encounter on her
journey onward.
We are unlikely to ever know the underlying cause of

Sammy’s death, and her skeleton is free of any obvious signs
of either trauma or responses to chronic infectious disease.
Many of the other children at Man Bac did show signs of
physiological disruption and/or disease before they ulti-
mately succumbed. Given the extremely high probability of
death during childhood at Man Bac, one might be excused
for thinking that adults would forswear any significant emo-
tional investment in their offspring. However, such a propo-
sition is not supported: despite high levels of childhood mor-
tality and morbidity, all recovered children were afforded
basic burial treatment-and some very young kids had excep-
tionally “rich” graves. There was deep emotional investment
in children in spite of (or perhaps because of) the exception-
ally high risk of ill health and/or death. Sammy, and the
other children at Man Bac, was invested with great value in
death and in life. Living with death everyday heightened the
community’s appreciation of the gift of life: children.
References Cited
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P.
2011 When the World’s Population Took Off: The Springboard
of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Science
333(6042):560–561.
Halcrow, S. E., and N. Tayles
2011 The Bioarchaeological Investigation of Children and
Childhood. In Social Bioarchaeology, edited by S. C. Agarw-
al and B. A. Glencross, pp. 333–360. Wiley-Blackwell,
Malden, Massachusetts.
Lukacs, J. R.
2008 Fertility and Agriculture Accentuate Sex Differences in
Dental Caries Rates. Current Anthropology 49:901–914.
Oxenham, Marc F., H. Matsumura, and K. D. D. Nguyen (editors)
2011 Man Bac: The Excavation of a Neolithic Site in Northern
Vietnam. The Biology. Australian National University E
Press, Terra Australis 33. Canberra.
Willis, A., and Marc F. Oxenham
2012 A Case of Maternal and Perinatal Death in Neolithic south-
ern Vietnam, c. 2100–1500 BCE. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology DOI: 10.1002/oa.1296, in press.

A BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF SEX AND GENDER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Pamela K. Stone
Pamela K. Stone is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the School of Natural Sciences, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA
S
ex and gender, what is the difference? As I began to behaviorally. A concept forged by a changing social climate
write this I thought it might be interesting to pose this dominated by western European culture and reaffirmed by
question to my 10 and 7-year-old boys. They thought the confluences of the Victorian Era moral codes, the Indus-
about it and the older one suggested that sex is the difference trial Revolution, and the need for science to categorize all
between being a boy and a girl, but he was not sure how gen- things into simple and clearly definable groups (see Stone
der was any different than sex. In the end both of them and Walrath 2006). Sex was (and is) predicated on the idea
responded—”they are the same.” I tried some more prompt- that you have only two options: male or female. The same is
ing about sex, the youngest one suggested that maybe it had true for gender, which rests on this binary of male and
to do with having a “doodle” or not. A good answer, biology female sex creating two genders: masculine and feminine.
defines sex. But still they could not tease apart how gender This established the norms, and in turn they have been used
might be different. Why is this? And if there are no differ- as the lens with which to interpret all other cultures through
ences between the two, why are we concerned with the con- time and space.
cepts of sex and gender?
The downfall has been that this results in homogenizing
As Bioarchaeologists we have to be clear and careful about people and missing the diversity of sex and gender, and the
what we mean when we use these terms. We can begin the roles, behaviors, and activities that might not be tied to sex in
discussion stating that sex defines the reproductive and bio- the same way that they have been within our own cultural
logical differences in which some components are visible tapestry. Bioarchaeologists have begun to look beyond the
(for example, the phallus and breasts) and others are unseen binary, and to offer more complex interpretations of peoples’
(such as the uterus and chromosomes). Gender is the identities and roles in communities not bound by single bio-
ascribed cultural performance (roles, behavior, activities) of logical markers or cultural practices, but acknowledged in
individuals, often prescribed by the culture in which they other ways and through other markers.
live. A GOOGLE search offers the same range of definitions
and they all suggest that these terms are limited to defining In archaeology, Gero and Conkey (1991) reflected on this
male and female—and offer no alternate to this established issue as they worked toward engendering archaeological
binary. Thus, we have defined ourselves into a corner, one inquiry. Here their objective was to challenge assumptions
that results in an inability to see the differences between sex and concepts, to reframe “how to think about gender rela-
and gender, and the potential for there to be more than what tions,” and to consider how this shift in thinking would
is now traditionally seen as a biological and social male and expand and reimagine conceptual frameworks. They cau-
female. Anything outside these boundaries is usually tioned archaeologists to move away from the “idea of gender
thought to be deviant. as a structuring principal” (1991:9). They were calling for a
new model of gender analysis, one that included women and
To move beyond these binaries, both in our everyday lives offered more complex interpretations of peoples roles in
and also in our interpretations of past populations, requires community not bound by prescribed cultural practices, but
some self-reflection on our part. This binary perspective is a interpreted through the material culture excavated. Fausto-
product of our own cultural colonialism of the body, initiat- Sterling (1993) showed how biologically the concept of two
ed in the 1800s, and constructed with rigid parameters for sexes is problematic, and that there actually may be as many
which to consider males and females both biologically and as five sexes. Moreover, anthropologists had been reporting

are beginning to redefine how bioarchaeologists conceive of

and assign sex and gender to the skeletonized individual.
The research I and others (see Agarwal and Glencross 2011)
have been conducting acknowledges that women living in
marginal settings give up meals so that their children can
eat, that they are the primary caregivers to both young and
old members of their families, and that often they perform
strenuous activities to either maintain the household or to
earn a wage. We know now it is more important to consider
the complexity of the biological burden on women and the
ways that these gendered activities may make women more
nutritionally stressed, immunologically compromised, and
physically tired (see Selin and Stone 2009). New interpreta-
tions of the “man the hunter, woman the gatherer” paradigm
Figure 1. Riley (10) and Tanner (7). Photo by Pamela Stone. reveals that the gathering females bore the burden of feeding
the group on a day-to-day basis, placing them at the center of
subsistence strategies in many foraging populations.
on many cultures in which three or more genders live in con-
cert, and that the gender was not always as clearly connected In concert with beginning to understand the biological bur-
to the biological sex as it was to the role that the individual dens of subsistence and day-to-day stressors, we need to
played within the community (for example, see Abbott 1984; return to the question of pregnancy and its impact. There is
Epple 1998). The goals here were in the acknowledgment of little data to support problematic, particularly obstructed,
multiple gender roles and a movement away from a static birth as a key factor in early death for a large number of
binary—thus, to recognize that the spectrum of human iden- ancient women. However, there are a few notable exceptions
tity is tied both to biological (sex) identity and to the identity where neonatal remains are found in situ in the pelvic girdle
of the individual through lived experience within their cul- (for example, see Arriaza et al. 1988). My own analysis of
tural frameworks (gender). For the bioarchaeologist this obstetric pelvic data has revealed that females in marginal-
does not mean we have to define the gendered experience as ized environments show little to no difference in pelvic size
a lens of sex identity, but as we interpret the past we have to and shape (except in the case of pathology or traumatic
remember to see the lived experience as reflected on the injury) (see Stone 2000). Thus, the sole cause of young
body and in the archaeology before we decided what role female mortality is not simply due to pregnancy but rather to
someone is playing in their society. a complex suite of factors that we can begin to quantify with
new techniques such as muscle enthesiopathies (raised and
These developments are opening up new research agendas irregular boney changes as the site of muscles), measures of
in bioarchaeology. In my own research I questioned the ways robusticity, and chemical analyses of diet.
in which biological sex was assigned to skeletal individuals
and how this then forced certain kinds of interpretations. For Another example of the new directions in bioarchaeology
example, it was assumed that if a female died between the comes from the Eurasian Steppes where Davis-Kimball and
ages of 18–30 it was because she was likely stressed by preg- Behan (2003) revealed the complexity of male-female inter-
nancy and birth. Could birth really be that dangerous? This pretations based on grave goods, burial practices, and
seemed an unexplored assumption lacking empirical data to assumed roles of women and men. Here the skeletal materi-
support it. These assumptions about reproductively fragile al and mortuary context clearly demonstrated that the
females dying at a higher rate than age-matched males fit the females were practiced warriors. The original interpretations
roles ascribed to reproductive women. It seemed to me that by archaeologists who did not look at the bioarchaeological
this assumption was biologically deterministic and cultural- data was that the burials with swords and fighting imple-
ly narrow. I began to wonder if there were data to counter ment were males. It was the bioarchaeological data that
these interpretations, and how could we get past the repro- revealed that the females were the ones with the warrior
ductively “sick” female and show that there is more to being grave goods. The alternative hypothesis proposed was that
a female than death in childbirth. females were buried with their husband’s swords or that
these items represented some sort of fertility symbolism. But
Research that takes these kinds of issues into consideration Davis-Kimball presented a compelling case that the bioar-

References Cited
Abbott, C.
1984 Two Feminine Genders in Oneida. Anthropological Linguis-
tics 26(2):125–137.
Agarwal, Sabrina C., and Bonnie A. Glencross (editors)
2011 Social Bioarchaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Arriaza, B. T., M. Allison, and E. Gerszten
1988 Maternal Mortality in Pre-Columbian Indians of Arica,
Chile. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
77(1):35–41.
Davis-Kimball, Jeannine, and Mona Behan
2003 Warrior Women: An Archaeologist’s Search for History’s Hid-
den Heroines. Warner Books, New York.
Epple, Carolyn
Figure 2. Pamela Stone. Photo by Tanner. 1998 Coming to Terms with Navajo Nádleehí: A Critique of
Berdache, “Gay,” “Alternate Gender,” and “Two-Spirit”.
American Ethnologist 25:267–290.
Fausto-Sterling, Ann
chaeological data combined with the folklore of the region
1993 The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough.
support the assertion that these women were most likely The Sciences March/April:20–24.
warriors. Gero, Joan M., and Margaret W. Conkey (editors)
1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell
So we come back to the question: why is this important to Publishers, Oxford.
understand the distinctions between sex and gender? Where Selin, H. S., and Pamela K. Stone (editors)
does this leave the archaeologists and bioarchaeologists? 2009 Childbirth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy,
Today, as my boys grow up, they are entering a world that is Childbirth and the Postpartum. Springer, New York.
beginning to recognize that boys and girls are not the only Stone, Pamela K.
identities that people have. As we hear more and more about 2000 Paleoobstetrics: Reproduction, Workload, and Mortality
children “born in the wrong body,” we are seeing new mod- for Ancestral Pueblo women. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
els for gender beyond our traditional “pink and blue” binary. tion, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
It is important to make the distinction between sex and gen- Stone, Pamela K., and D. Walrath
der and to be clear in our interpretations, because it allows 2006 The Gendered Skeleton: Anthropological Interpretations
us to think beyond our own cultural box and offer more of the Boney Pelvis. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary
nuanced and hopefully accurate interpretations of the past. Remains, edited by R. Gowland and C. J. Knüsel, pp.
Walker and Cook (1998:259) put it succinctly, and I will end 168–178. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
with their words as my last point: “in bioarchaeology, main- Walker, Philip L., and D. C. Cook
1998 Brief Communication: Gender and Sex: Vive La Differ-
taining this distinction is important because it makes it pos-
ence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
sible to explore the relationship between the biological and
106(2):255–259.
social forces that shape human behavior. . .” in the past, and
I would add, also in the present.

THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF DISEASE

Molly K. Zuckerman
Molly K. Zuckerman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University
T
he bioarchaeology of disease is the study of health con- anthropologists examine the biological and social causes of
ditions that affected human populations in the past, disparities in health, different cultures’ perceptions of dis-
achieved primarily through the study of human skele- ease and illness, and how medical practitioners and healers
tal remains. In general, scholars often think of this focus as operate in modern societies, bioarchaeologists examine the
the province of paleopathologists—those who trace the his- same in those of the past. They do so using skeletal evidence
tory of ancient diseases using skeletal evidence. But the of disease, diet, and behavior; archaeological evidence of past
bioarchaeology of disease is in many ways unique and dis- environments, and social, political, and economic systems;
tinct from this field; while paleopathologists often focus and, for historic societies, historical material on health, med-
closely upon identifying which diseases affected humans in icine, beliefs about illness, and many other aspects of past
the past, bioarchaeologists primarily focus on what these dis- cultures.
eases meant to those that they affected. Bioarchaeologists
who work on disease often ask questions such as: what does From the very start of the field, bioarchaeologists have
the presence—or absence—of a particular condition in a focused on diverse aspects of health and disease in both pre-
past population suggest about its environment, culture, or historic and historic cultures. Many early studies used skele-
political and economic systems? How did social inequality, tal indicators of stress, such as signs of arrested growth and
and a person’s position within society, influence the diseases development during childhood from disease or starvation, to
they developed, their access to resources and treatment, and examine the health consequences of major shifts in past
the way that they experienced their condition? What does the societies. For instance, studies examined the consequences
health of a given population, especially its most disadvantaged of contact between Europeans and Native Americans and the
and thus vulnerable members, tell you about the success with Old and New Worlds (Larsen and Milner 1994), the develop-
which they adapted to changes in their environment? ment of agriculture, sedentism, and plant and animal
domestication in the Neolithic Transition (Cohen and Arme-
Bioarchaeology emerged in the 1970s from the nexus of lagos 1984), and more recently, how patterns of health and
archaeology, physical (biological) anthropology, and pale- human disease have changed over entire millennia in both
opathology. It is premised on three components: attention to the eastern and western hemispheres (Steckel et al. 2002;
populations of humans rather than individuals, recognition Steckel and Rose 2002). From the 1980s into the early 2000s,
that cultural practices, technology, and even ideology can scholars moved on to such topics as the relationship between
affect biological adaptation as much as environmental arthritis and other forms of joint disease and culturally spe-
change, and an emphasis upon using hypothesis testing to cific, often gender-based behaviors (e.g., Mays 1999; Sofaer
examine the relationship between cultural and biological Derevenski 2000); the effects of poverty, social inequality,
adaptation in past populations. This perspective grants bioar- and gender and class-based differences in access to
chaeology its creative and interpretive power for answering resources on health (e.g., Sullivan 2005); and the emergence,
important questions about the adaptive processes of past ecology, and evolution of disease (e.g., Barrett et al. 1998).
populations on both regional and broader levels (Armelagos For instance, Barrett and colleagues introduced the idea that
and Van Gerven 2003); it gives the bioarchaeology of disease bioarchaeological evidence of health and disease could—and
a unique avenue for examining how a given society’s tech- should—be relevant to contemporary public health theory on
nology, ideologies, environment, economy, and politics will current trends in disease. They argued that rather than view-
influence the particular diseases it is affected by and in turn, ing current patterns of infectious disease, specifically the rise
the way these diseases shape that particular society. In many of new and reemerging diseases like tuberculosis,
ways, this means that the bioarchaeology of disease is much HIV/AIDs, and now H1N1 influenza, as phenomena unre-
like a medical anthropology of the past. Just as medical lated to history, they should instead be interpreted in light of

other trends and transitions in human For instance, Rasmussen and colleagues
health. Specifically, modern disease trends (2008) examined medieval Danish skele-
can be viewed as but one phase of ongoing tons with syphilis (as well as leprosy) from
social, historical, and ecological themes in several monastic cemeteries, and found
the relationship between humans and elevated levels in several individuals. By
their diseases. This cycle started with the integrating historical evidence, they were
rise of epidemics of infectious disease dur- able to attribute the levels to exposure from
ing the Neolithic Transition and pro- preparation of red, mercury containing
gressed to the rise of chronic and degener- inks, or more likely, to preparing and
ative disease, such as cardiovascular dis- receiving treatments for syphilis and lep-
ease and cancer, with urbanization, indus- rosy. Most recently, Zuckerman (2011,
trialization, and modern environments. 2012) assessed whether gender or socioeco-
This argument—that modern disease nomic status had any measurable effect on
trends can be best understood within the syphilis patients’ access to mercury in sev-
context of past patterns, and in corollary, enteenth- to nineteenth-century England.
that studies of past health should be
undertaken with the goal of elucidating (if For example, while historical evidence
not improving) the health conditions fac- ambiguously suggested that women likely
ing modern societies (Armelagos et al. Figure 1: Woodcut, Vienna, 1498. An illus- had little access to treatment, due to greater
2005)—guides much current research on tration of physicians treating patients poverty and gendered prejudice, mercury
the bioarchaeology of disease and, indeed, infected with syphilis, then known as ‘the levels were surprisingly uniform across
is one of the key threads binding together great pox’, with mercury. Mercury was skeletons of different sexes. These results
some of the great diversity of current commonly applied as a skin ointment, as suggest that women may have exerted
research on the subject. shown here. great—and previously undetected—
agency in pursuit of one of the few treat-
Given the great range of topics currently encompassed with- ments thought to be effective against this painful, disfiguring
in the bioarchaeology of disease, the following discussion disease.
highlights two particular foci, each of which are novel, excit-
ing, and promise to be highly influential within the field. Second, bioarchaeological evidence has recently been
applied to an area of epidemiological research that explores
The first is the use of biochemical analyses to examine the the relationship between stressful events experienced early
effects of social inequality and aspects of social identity, like in life and poor health later in life. The Developmental Ori-
class, on access to health care and treatment in the past. Sev- gins of Health and Disease Hypothesis, or DOHaD (i.e.,
eral scholars have pursued skeletal evidence of treatment in Barker Hypothesis), holds that stressors experienced during
the past, like Grauer and Roberts’ (1996) seminal study, gestation and childhood, such as those linked to low birth
which examined bone fractures in skele- weight, are tied to negative outcomes in
tons from a medieval English cemetery, adulthood, like cardiovascular disease and
finding that even the poorest sufferers diabetes. The hypothesis has been tested
had well healed breaks and thus access to using twentieth-century medical records,
bone setters. But work on the subject has but incomplete records and confounders
largely been stalled by the fact that few involved in tracing health over the course of
diseases affect bone and even fewer treat- an entire lifetime have spurred critiques
ments leave discernible marks. Recently, that substantially more research is needed
however, minimally destructive tests that in humans to better understand the phe-
identify and quantify the elements and nomenon. Armelagos and colleagues (2009)
metals present in bone have opened new responded with a previously untapped
avenues for detecting chemically based source of evidence: skeletal data on health,
treatments and determining who had stress, and longevity. Bioarchaeologists
access to them. Several recent studies Figure 2: Molly Zuckerman participating have long recognized that a linkage exists
have focused on syphilis, which leaves in a question and answer session with stu- between skeletal stress indicators, especial-
distinctive skeletal lesions and was com- dents on the bioarchaeology of disease at ly dental indicators of arrested growth, and
monly treated with mercury from the Georgia State University (the pictured overall health and longevity in skeletal sam-
Renaissance up to the antibiotic era. skeleton is a plastic instructional ples from many populations. However,
cast)(Photo credit: Bethany Turner). these patterns had not yet been explicitly

2009 Enamel Hypoplasia and Early Mortality: Bioarchaeological

Support for the Barker Hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropol-
ogy 18:261–271.
Armelagos, George J., and Dennis P. Van Gerven
2003 A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Con-
trasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts. American Anthropolo-
gist 105:53–64.
Barrett, R., C. W. Kuzawa, T. W. McDade, and George J. Armelagos
1998 Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: The
Third Epidemologic Transition. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 27:247–271.
Cohen, Mark N., and George Armelagos (editors)
1984 Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Academic
Press, New York.
Grauer, A. L., and C. A. Roberts
1996 Paleoepidemiology, Healing, and Possible Treatment of
Traumas in the Medieval Cemetery Popoulation of St.
Helen-on-the-Walls, York, England. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 100:531–544.
Figure 2: Molly Zuckerman using handheld X-Ray Florescence Spec- Larsen, Clark Spencer, and George Milner (editors)
trometry to measure levels of mercury in human bone from seventeenth- 1994 In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest.
century London skeletal samples, Museum of London’s Centre for J. Wiley, New York.
Human Bioarchaeology Laboratory. This technique allows nondestruc- Mays, Simon
tive analysis of the elements contained within various materials, includ- 1999 A Biomechanical Study of Activity Patterns in a Medieval
Human Skeletal Assemblage. International Journal of
ing human bone (Photo credit: Lilly Zuckerman).
Osteoarchaeology 9:68–73.
Rasmussen, Kaare L., J. L. Boldsen, H. K. Kristensen, L. Skytte, K.
recognized as potentially congruent with the DOHaD and L. Hansen, L. Mølholm, P. M. Grootes, M.-J. Nadeau, and
thus, as representative of a tremendous source of valuable K. M. F. Eriksen
data for providing new insights into this theory. Importantly, 2008 Mercury Levels in Danish Medieval Human Bones. Jour-
because of the great number of skeletal samples in existence, nal of Archaeological Science 35(8):2295–2306.
and the availability of archaeological and historical evidence Sofaer Derevenski, Joanna R.
providing context on the environments, behaviors, and prac- 2000 Sex Differences in Activity-related Osseous Change in the
Spine and the Gendered Division of Labor at Ensay and
tices of the once living communities that they represent,
Wharram Percy, UK. American Journal of Physical Anthro-
skeletal samples can provide bioarchaeologists with an pology 111(3):333–354.
invaluable and unrivaled amount of information on the Steckel, R. H., Clark Spencer Larsen, Paul W. Sciulli, and Philip L.
health consequences of a tremendous and highly variable Walker
range of behaviors and environments. Whereas the length of 2002 A History of Health in Europe over the Past 10,000 Years:
human life spans and ethical issues involved with testing on Summary of a research proposal. The Global History of
humans often mean that many questions remain unan- Health Project. Electronic document,
swered about the health consequences of various behaviors http://global.sbs.ohio-state.edu/european_module.htm.
and environments for modern humans, bioarchaeological Steckel, Richard H., and Jerome C. Rose (editors)
studies of health and disease can often reveal instances of 2002 The Backbone of History: Health and Nutrition in the West-
ern Hemisphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
past populations that have already experienced those envi-
Sullivan, Amy
ronments and engaged in those behaviors. Findings from 2005 Prevalence and Etiology of Acquired Anemia in Medieval
these studies can further reveal whether their health benefit- York England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
ted from—or bore the brunt of—these choices. Their experi- 128:252-272.
ences are thus there as lessons to be learned—if bioarchae- Zuckerman, Molly K.
ologists can seek them out—for our potential benefit. 2011 Mercury in the Midst of Mars and Venus: Reconstructing
Gender and Socioeconomic Status in the Context of Mer-
cury Treatments for Acquired Syphilis in 17th to 19th
References Cited Century England. In 76th Annual Meeting of Society for
Armelagos, George J., Peter J. Brown, and Bethany L. Turner American Archaeology, Sacramento.
2005 Evolutionary, Historical and Political Economic Perspec- 2012 Mercury in the Midst of Mars and Venus: Reconstructing
tives on Health and Disease. Social Sciences and Medicine Gender and Socioeconomic Status in the Context of Mer-
61:755–765. cury Treatments for Acquired Syphilis in 17th to 19th
Armelagos, George J., Alan H. Goodman, Kristin N. Harper, and Century England. Journal of Social Archaeology, in press.
Michael L. Blakey

nature, but also any site, property or MARTIN & HARROD, from page 31 <
group of material properties, inscribed
as World Heritage, which can be studied data that can be collected (i.e., that is,
using an archaeological methodology. through the archaeological record or
The Conference is organised by the from the human remains and mortuary
NEWS & NOTES Complutense University of Madrid, and component). The major challenge to
sponsored by the Council of Menorca archaeology is being able to know how
Island (Balearic Islands, Spain), so that well people were coping and adapting to
T
he Seventh World Archaeological Menorca Island will become a place of environmental and cultural constraints.
Congress (WAC-7) will be held in reference for studies on the treatment of Bioarchaeology provides many different
Jordan at the King Hussein Bin properties inscribed by UNESCO. Web: ways to reveal these associations. Bioar-
Talal Convention Center on the Dead Sea, h t t p : / / w w w. c o n g r e s o p a t r i m o - chaeologist Joanna Sofaer (2006) has
January 14-18, 2013. WAC-7 will feature niomundialmenorca.cime.es/portal.asp argued that human remains can be best
an engaging international academic pro- x?IDIOMA=3 Email: congresopatrimo- utilized in answering the big questions
gram, lively social activities, and optional [email protected] of our time when they are viewed and
tours of Jordan's outstanding natural and analyzed as part of (not separate from)
cultural heritage. WAC-7 presentations material culture. The same research
may take many forms: working sessions, APRIL 18–22 questions can be asked when examining
position papers, forums, demonstrations, the human body that can be asked with
and workshops. The WAC-7 Program 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for
the projectile point or ceramic shard.
will be organized into large themes, each American Archaeology. Memphis, Ten-
New techniques are key because they
containing several sessions that relate to nessee. www.saa.org.
involve more nuanced ways of under-
the same overall issue (e.g. Landscape, standing this relationship between
Geoarchaeology, Archaeology and Digital bioarchaeology and archaeology. In this
Technologies, Ethics). Proposals for MAY 16–20 issue and the following issue, bioarchae-
themes, sessions, and individual contri- Annual meeting of the Canadian ologists will give a flavor for some the
butions are now being accepted. The Archaeological Association, Montreal, new and exciting directions that are
deadline for proposals of themes is April Quebec, Canada. http://www.canadian- being explored.
30th, 2012. Register and submit propos- archaeology.com/caa/annual-meeting
als early to take advantage of lower regis-
tration costs. For further details and the References Cited
most up-to-date WAC-7 information, Armelagos, George J.
including submission, registration, and 2013 2003 Bioarchaeology as Anthropology. In
travel grant deadlines, visit: Archaeology is Anthropology, edited
http://wac7.worldarchaeological- by Susan D. Gillespie and Deborah
congress.org/ or contact Talal Akasheh
JANUARY 9–12 L. Nichols, pp. 27–41. Archaeologi-
(Academic Secretary) at: info1@cul- The Society for Historical Archaeology’s cal Papers of the American Anthro-
tech.org annual Conference on Historical and pological Association No. 13. Amer-
Underwater Archaeology; Ramada ican Anthropological Association,
Leicester Hotel and University of Leices- Arlington, Virginia/
ter, Leicester, England, UK. Abstract Buikstra Jane, and Lane A. Beck (editors)
submission deadline: July 9, 2012. Con- 2006 Bioarchaeology: The Contextual
tact: Dr. Sarah Tarlow, School of Archae- Analysis of Human Remains. Aca-
ology and Ancient History, University of demic Press, Burlington, Vermont.
CALENDAR Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leicester, Knudson, Kelly J., and Christopher M. Sto-
janowski
England, UK; email [email protected]; fax
2008 New Directions in Bioarchaeology:
+44 (0)116 252 5005
Recent Contributions to the Study
2012 of Human Social Identities. Journal
of Archaeological Research
16:397–432.
APRIL 9–13 Larsen, Clark Spencer
The First International Conference on APRIL 3–7 1997 Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior
Best Practices in World Heritage- 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for from the Human Skeleton. Cam-
Archaeology aims to generate a meeting American Archaeology. Honolulu, bridge University Press, Cam-
point on Archaeology management and Hawaii. www.saa.org bridge.
treatment of World Heritage sites. It will Sofaer, Joanna R.
focus on Archaeology, keeping in mind 2006 The Body as Material Culture: A
that it needs to consider not only the Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cam-
sites, which have been inscribed as bridge University Press, Cam-
World Heritage due to its Archaeological bridge.

NEW FROM THE SAA PRESS AND AVAILABLE IN MEMPHIS!
All the King’s Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting

and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of
the Past
Edited by Paula K. Lazrus and Alex Barker
ISBN 978-0-932839-44-2
168 pp.
Regular Price: $26.95, Member Discount Price:
$21.95
Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology:

From Colonization to Complexity
David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman
288 pp.
ISBN 978-0-932839-43-5
Regular Price: $24.95, Member Discount Price: $19.95
Readings in American Archaeological Theory:

Selections from American Antiquity, 1962–2011
Revised Edition
Compiled by Christine VanPool and Todd VanPool
344 pp.
ISBN 978-0-932839-45-9
Regular Price: $24.95, Member Discount Price: $19.95
TO ORDER, PLEASE CALL SAA AT 202-789-8200 OR ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.SAA.ORG

Change Service Requested
Washington, DC 20005
1111 14th Street, NW, Suite 800
SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
HANOVER, PA 17331
US POSTAGE PAID
Non-Profit Org
PERMIT NO 4
COMING SOON FOR SAA MEMBERS ONLY!
Current online editions of

A
AMERICAN
L
L AT I N A M E RICAN
ANTIQUITY
VOLUME 77 NUMBER 1 JANUARY 2012
American Antiquity and ANTIQUITY
VOLUME 22 NUMBER 4 DECEMBER 2011
11
Kirikongo Mound Cluster
Mouhoun Province
Burkina Faso
Latin American Antiquity!
0 150m
Seasonal Drainage 1
Burkina Road #10

Smelting
Smithing
As soon as the platform is
launched, SAA members will
Pottery Production
Garden Hunting
Large Animal
Hunting
Cattle
4
3
Chicken
Cemetery
receive an email with details of

Adult Burial
Infant/Child Burial
0 10cm
how to access the journal(s) to

which they have subscribed.
Questions? Please contact [email protected].

The SAA Archaeological Record - March 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAA Archaeological Record - March 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAA Archaeological Record - March 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL FORUM: NEW DIRECTIONS IN BIOARCHAEOLOGY

MARCH 2012 • VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2

SEE YOU IN MEMPHIS!

Editor’s Corner 2 Jane Eva Baxter

News and Notes 44

2 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 3

4 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

Communications and SAA And About Those Spam Filters

Email Address Content New Faces in Memphis

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 5

SAA LLEGA BRINGING SAA TO

Barbara Arroyo, Tomas Mendizabal, Barbara Arroyo, Tomas Mendizabal,

6 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

Latest Discoveries. The schedule allowed for 36 talks and 12

The final piece of the program was the invitation to a leading

La parte final del programa fue la invitación de un prominente

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 7

Future meetings should definitely include planned discussion

The presentations covered the archaeology of almost all the

8 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 9

SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS

10 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

Number of responders in research area Total number of individuals

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 11

agree nor disagree,” 23 percent agreed, and 10 percent disagreed.

Implications of the Survey

12 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

(Anderson and Gillam 2000; Mandryk et al. 2001; Meltzer 2009;

In relation to the single migration model, the Beringian Stand-

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 13

CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL, from page 8 <

Los tres disfrutamos mucho al organizar la Conferencia. Por

Se agradece a los patrocinadores locales de la Conferencia Inter-

14 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

EXPERIMENT MEETS RECREATION

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 15

experimentation, from naked eye observation to high speed photography, from

16 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

I suspect that some of my academic friends shy away from

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 17

Maria C. Bruno, Nicole C. Couture, and Deborah E. Blom

18 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

In Bolivia, Qochamama roughly means

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 19

in opinion between scholars are antagonistic.

The reality is that codirectorship can be messy.

We continue to learn how to share leadership

20 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 21

TAKING THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

Richard M. (Rick) Pettigrew

22 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012

time, I became less satisfied and increasingly frustrated about

I recall many times sitting around after a hard day of excavation,

While completing class work and my dissertation, I worked on

A big change came in 1986, when Mike Moratto of the Califor-

March 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 23

24 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2012